„  FREER 
GALLERY 


SMITHSONIAN  INSTITUTION 
WASH1NGTON,D.C. 


ISO 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY 

PUBLICATION  177 
ANTHROPOLOGICAL  SERIES  VOL.  XIII,  No.  2 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


PART  I 

PROLEGOMENA  ON  THE   HISTORY  OF 
DEFENSIVE  ARMOR 


BY 

BERTHOLD   LAUFER 

Associate  Curator  of  Asiatic  Ethnology 

64  Plates  and  55  Text-figures 
The  Mrs.  T.  B.  Blackstone  Expedition 


THE  !TER 

ARY 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

I.  HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS 73 

II.  DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  ARCHAIC  PERIOD      .  .   174 

III.  DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  HAN  PERIOD       .     .-    .     .     .   201 

IV.  HISTORY  OF  CHAIN  MAIL  AND  RING  MAIL 237 

V.  THE  PROBLEM  OF  PLATE  ARMOR 258 

VI.  DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  T'ANG  PERIOD 292 

VII.  HORSE  ARMOR  AND  CLAY  FIGURES  OF  HORSES  ....  306 


CHINESE   CLAY   FIGURES 

PART  I 

PROLEGOMENA   ON   THE   HISTORY   OF 
DEFENSIVE  ARMOR 

I.  HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS. 

An  extensive  collection  of  ancient  clay  figures  gathered  in  the 
provinces  of  Shen-si  and  Ho-nan  during  the  period  from  1908  to  1910 
is  the  basis  of  the  present  investigation.  As  the  character  of  this 
material  gives  rise  to  research  of  manifold  kinds,  it  has  been  thought 
advisable  to  publish  it  in  two  separate  parts.  Many  of  the  clay  statu- 
ettes which  form  the  nucleus  of  our  study  are  characterized  by  the  wear 
of  defensive  armor,  hence  this  first  part  is  devoted  to  an  inquiry  into  the 
history  of  defensive  armor, — a  task  of  great  interest,  and  one  which  here- 
tofore has  not  been  attempted.  It  will  be  recognized  that  this  subject 
sheds  new  light  on  the  ancient  culture  of  China  and  her  relations  to 
other  culture  zones  of  Asia.  The  second  part  of  this  publication  will 
deal  in  detail  with  the  history  of  clay  figures,  the  practice  of  interring 
them,  the  religious  significance  underlying  the  various  types,  and  the 
culture  phase  of  the  nation  from  which  they  have  emanated. 

Before  embarking  on  our  subject  proper,  a  preliminary  question 
must  be  decided.  It  is  the  tradition  of  the  Chou  period  that  the 
cuirasses l  employed  at  that  time  were  manufactured  from  the  hides  of 
two  animals  designated  by  the  words  se  (No.  10,298)  and  si  (No. 
42i8).2  It  is  imperative  to  have  a  clear  understanding  of  what  these 
two  animals  were  in  the  early  antiquity  of  China.  As  this  problem  is 
still  pending,  and  as  a  close  and  coherent  investigation  of  the  matter  has 
never  been  made,  I  have  decided  to  treat  it  from  the  very  beginning  by 
means  of  all  accessible  methods,  with  the  possible  hope  of  a  final  solution. 

The  present  state  of  the  problem  is  as  follows:    EDOUARD  Biox,3 


1  "Cuirass"  or  "cuirbouilly"  is  the  right  term  for  this  kind  of  armor,  as  these 
words  (like  French  cuirasse,  Italian  corazza)  go  back  to  Latin  coratium  ("a  breast- 
plate of  leather"),  derived  from  the  word  corium  ("leather"). 

2  These  figures  refer  to  the  numbers  of  the  Chinese  characters  in  the  Chinese- 
English  Dictionary  of  H.  A.  GILES. 

1  Le  Tcheou-li,  ou  Rites  des  Tcheou,  Vol.  II,  p.  507  (Paris,  1851). 

73 


74  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

the  ingenious  translator  of  the  Chou  li,  has  expressed  his  opinion  in  these 
words:  "I  translate  by  buffalo  the  character  si,  and  by  rhinoceros  the 
character  se.  These  two  characters  *  denote  in  the  Shi  king  a  rhinoceros 
or  a  wild  buffalo,  without  the  possibility  of  distinguishing  between  them. 
The  skin  of  the  rhinoceros  being  very  thick,  it  seems  difficult  to  believe 
that  it  could  have  been  sliced,  and  that  the  pieces  were  sewed  together, 
in  order  to  make  cuirasses.  In  this  case  the  two  characters  of  the  text2 
would  designate  here  two  species  of  buffalo."3  PALLADIUS,  in  his 
Chinese-Russian  Dictionary,  treats  the  matter  in  the  opposite  way,  and 
renders  se  by  (i)  "an  animal  resembling  a  wild  ox,"  (2)  "Malayan  rhi- 
noceros," and  si  by  "rhinoceros."  COUVREUR  credits  the  word  se  first 
with  the  latter  meaning,  secondly  with  that  of  bceuf  sauvage.* 

CnAVANNES6  has  clearly  and  sensibly  expressed  the  opinion  that 

1  It  should  properly  read,  "words." 

1  Referring  to  the  passage  of  the  Chou  li  where  the  hide  cuirasses  are  mentioned. 

8  In  his  essay  on  the  Manners  of  the  Ancient  Chinese  (in  LEGGE,  Chinese  Classics, 
Vol.  IV,  Prolegomena,  p.  148),  BIOT  says  that  "they  hunted  also  herds  of  deer,  of 
boars,  of  wild  oxen,"  on  which  LEGGE  annotates,  "These  wild  oxen  would  seem  to  be 
rhinoceroses."  But  in  his  original  article  (Journal  asiatique,  1843,  p.  321),  BIOT  has 
added  the  following  comment:  "Le  caractere  si  est  traduit  ordinairement  par  rhinp- 
ce'ros,  et  c'est,  en  effet,  son  sens  actuel.  Lacharme  a  traduit,  tantdt  bos  sylvestris, 
tantdt  rhinoceros.  II  me  semble  que  les  grandes  chasses  devaient  etre  dirige'es  surtout 
contre  des  troupeaux  de  boeufs  sauyages  ou  buffles."  The  objections  raised  by  Biot 
in  the  above  passage  are  not  valid;  it  is  certainly  possible  to  slice  rhinoceros-hide,  and 
to  sew  the  pieces  together.  Cuirasses  and  shields  have  been  made  from  it,  as  may  be 
seen  from  many  specimens  in  the  collections  of  our  museums.  A  shield  of  rhinoceros- 
hide  is  illustrated  in  Plate  XXVII.  In  accordance  with  the  above  definition,  BIOT, 
likewise  in  his  translation  of  the  Annals  of  the  Bamboo  Books  (Extrait  du  Journal 
asiatique  1841  and  1842,  pp.  41,  46),  rendered  se  by  "rhinoceros"  and  si  by  "bceuf- 
si  (rhinoceros),"  while  LEGGE  (Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  Ill,  Prolegomena,  pp.  149,  153) 
in  both  cases  has  "rhinoceros."  It  will  be  seen  in  the  course  of  this  investigation 
how  Biot's  error  was  caused,  and  that  his  opinion  is  untenable.  W.  R.  GINGELL  (The 
Ceremonial  Usages  of  the  Chinese,  p.  81,  London,  1852)  treated  the  two  words  in 
a  way  opposite  to  that  of  Biot,  translating  in  the  passage  of  Chou  li  the  term  si  kia 
by  "rhinoceros-hide  armor"  and  se  kia  by  "wild  buffalo's-hide  armor."  No  one  of 
those  who  from  purely  philological  points  of  view  proposed  the  rendering  "wild 
buffalo"  has  ever  taken  the  trouble  to  raise  the  question  whether  anything  like  wild 
buffalo  exists  in  China,  anciently  or  in  modern  times.  BUSHELL  (The  Stone  Drums 
of  the  Chou  Dynasty,  Journal  China  Branch  R.  As.  Soc,,  Vol.  VIII,  1874,  P-  I54)  was 
of  the  opinion  that  the  ancient  Chinese  hunted  the  rhinoceros  in  the  low  swamps. 

4  The  passage  in  Lun  yu  (xvi,  7)  is  translated  by  COUVREUR  (Les  quatre  livres, 
p.  250),  "  Si  un  tigre  ou  un  boeuf  sauvage  s'e'chappe  de  sa  cage."  Nevertheless  in  the 
glossary  (p.  664)  thejword  se  is  rendered  by  "rhinoceros."  LEGGE  (Chinese  Classics, 
Vol.  I,  p.  307)  translates  here  "rhinoceros,"  despite  Chu  Hi's  (undoubtedly  wrong) 
interpretation  of  se  being  a  ye  niu  ("wild  bull ").  In  his  first  edition  of  Lun  yii  (which 
is  not  accessible  to  me,  but  this  may  be  gleaned  from  PLATH,  Die  Beschaftigungen  der 
alten  Chinesen,  p.  56),  LEGGE  translated  se  by  "wild  ox."  In  the  text  of  Mtng-tse 
(III,  2,  ix,  6),  LEGGE  (Classics,  Vol.  II,  p.  281)  and  COUVREUR  (/.  c.,  p.  452)  are  in 
mutual  accord  in  translating  the  word  si  by  "rhinoceros,"  and  this  is  likewise  the  case 
with  reference  to  the  word  se  in  Li  ki,  II,  I,  in,  40  (LEGGE  in  Sacred  Books  of  the 
East,  Vol.  XXVII,  p.  158;  COUVREUR,  Li  ki,  Vol.  I,  p.  181).  In  Tsp  chuan,  vn,  2, 
LEGGE  (Classics,  Vol.  V,  p.  289)  renders  si  se  by  "rhinoceroses  and  wild  bulls." 

8  Les  M^moires  historiques  de  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  502. 


HISTORY  or  THE  RHINOCEROS  75 

se  niu  and  s*  appear  to  be  two  different  species  of  rhinoceros.  Also 
G.  DEVERIA*  has  translated  se  and  si  by  " rhinoceros." 

BRETSCHNEIDER,  both  a  naturalist  and  an  eminent  sinologue,  upheld 
the  opinion  that  the  rhinoceros,  and  goblets  made  from  rhinoceros-horn, 
are  repeatedly  mentioned  in  the  Chinese  classics,  and  that  the  latter  has 
been  reputed  from  time  immemorial  for  its  antipoisonous  virtues.  He 
refers  the  saying  that  rhinoceros-horn  cures  all  poisons,  to  the  Shtn-nung 
pfai  ts'ao  king,  attributed  by  tradition  to  the  mythical  Emperor  Sh&n-nung, 
at  all  events  the  most  ancient  Chinese  materia  medica  in  existence.2 

In  the  first  edition  of  his  Chinese-English  Dictionary,  Professor 
GILES,  the  eminent  sinologue  at  the  University  of  Cambridge,  Eng- 
land, attributed  to  both  se  and  si  the  meaning  of  "rhinoceros,"  with- 
out establishing  a  distinction  between  the  two.  In  the  second  edition, 
however,  we  read  under  se  (No.  10,298),  "A  bovine  animal,  figured  as  a 
buffalo  with  one  horn,  known  as  the  se  niu.  Another  name  for  the  si 
4128;  see  8346  for  its  confusion  with  the  rhinoceros."  Under  the  last- 
named  heading  it  is  said  that  the  term  si  niu  is  "a  bovine  animal, 
figured  as  a  buffalo  with  a  single  horn;"  with  the  addition  that  the 
traditional  "rhinoceros"  of  foreigners  seems  to  be  wholly  wrong. 
Further,  the  reader  is  requested  to  correct  No.  4128  si,  where  the 
meanings  "tapir"  and  "rhinoceros"  had  been  given.  In  his  "Adver- 
saria Sinica"  (p.  394),  Mr.  GILES  has  expounded  more  in  detail  the 
reasons  which  induced  him  to  make  these  alterations.  The  arguments 
advanced  by  him  are  briefly  three:  i.  The  rhinoceros  is  known  to  the 
Chinese  as  pi  kio,  "nose-horn."  2.  In  two  passages  of  Chao  Ju-kua 
(translation  of  HIRTH  and  ROCKHILL,  pp.  118,  233),  rhinoceroses  are 
spoken  of  as  being  shot  with  arrows,  while  Giles  finds  it  stated  in  the 
T*u  shu  tsi  ch'dng  that  arrows  cannot  pierce  the  hide  of  the  rhinoceros. 
3.  The  si  and  the  se  are  figured  in  the  latter  work  as  slightly  differing 

1  Histoire  des  relations  de  la  Chine  avec  1'Annam,  p.  88  (Paris,  1880). 

1  Chinese  Recorder,  Vol.  VI,  1875,  p.  19,  and  Mediaeval  Researches,  Vol.  I,  p.  153. 
Regarding  the  materia  medica  current  under  the  name  of  Sh6n-nung  see  BRET- 
SCHNEIDER  (Botanicon  Sinicum,  pt.  i ,  pp.  27-32).  BRETSCHNEIDER,  though  believing 
that  in  India  the  people  from  time  immemorial  attribute  the  same  antipoisonous  vir- 
tues to  the  rhinoceros-horn  as  the  Chinese  do,  says  he  cannot  believe  that  the  Chinese 
have  borrowed  this  practice  from  the  Hindu  or  vice  versa.  The  Hindu  conception  is 
not  attested  by  any  passage  in  Sanskrit  literature,  but  only  by  Ctesias  and  Aelian 
who  state  that  drinking-vessels  made  from  the  horn  of  the  unicorn  safeguard  from 
poison  and  various  diseases.  The  belief  is  likewise  absent  among  the  Greeks  and  Ro- 
mans, in  whose  records  the  number  of  references  to  rhinoceros-horn  is  exceedingly 
small  (H.  BLUMXER,  Technologic  und  Terminologie  der  Gewerbe  und  Kunste, 
Vol.  II,  p.  358).  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Chinese  notions  are  due  to  any  stimulus 
received  from  outside;  they  appear,  on  the  contrary,  as  legitimate  offshoots  grown  on 
Taoist  soil.  The  Chinese  likewise  conceived  the  idea  of  carving  rhinoceros-horn  into 
cups,  girdle-plaques,  and  fanciful  ornaments.  We  shall  come  back  to  these  various 
points  in  detail.  Compare  p.  154,  note. 


76 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


FIG.  1. 

Monoceros  of  European  Armorial  Style,  introduced  into  China  by  the'Jesuitj,Father  Ferdinand 
Verbiest  (from  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'&ng). 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS 


77 


FIG.  2. 

Rhinoceros,  Design  of  European  Origin,  introduced  into  China  by  the  Jesuit  Father  Ferdinand 
Verbiest  (from  T'u  fku  tsi  ck'tng). 


78  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

bovine  animals,1  with  a  single  horn  on  the  head.  Says  Mr.  GILES, 
"The  Erh  ya  says:  the  latter  is  like  an  ox,  and  the  former  like  a  pig, 
while  the  Shan  hai  king  speaks  of  both  as  occurring  in  many  parts  of 
China.  There  is  thus  hopeless  confusion,  of  which  perhaps  the  explana- 
tion is  that  a  term  which  originally  meant  a  bovine  animal  was  later  on 
wrongly  applied  to  the  rhinoceros." 

The  first  argument  advanced  by  Mr.  Giles  is  not  admissible  as  good 
evidence  in  the  case.  "The  rhinoceros  is  known  to  the  Chinese  as 
pi  kio,  'nose-horn,'  and  is  approximately  figured  in  the  T'u  shu."  By 
referring  to  the  Chinese  cyclopaedia  we  find,  however,  that  this  name 
with  the  illustration  is  extracted  from  the  K'un  yii  t'u  shuo.  The  latter 
is  not  the  production  of  a  Chinese  author,  but  of  the  Jesuit  FERDINAND 
VERBIEST,  born  in  1623,  and  who  arrived  in  China  in  1659  and  died  in 
i688.2  This  section  of  the  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'&ng  alluded  to  by  Mr.  Giles 
and  devoted  to  "strange  animals"  contains  quite  a  number  of  illustra- 
tions and  texts  derived  from  the  work  of  Verbiest;  and  neither  his 
zoological  nomenclature  nor  his  descriptions  and  illustrations,  which  are 
based  on  European  lore,  can  be  laid  at  the  door  of  the  Chinese.  The 
evidence  is  here  produced  in  Figs,  i  and  2.  In  Fig.  i,  Verbiest  pictures 
a  "single-horned  animal"  (tu  kio  shou),  saying,  "India,  situated  on  the 
continent  of  Asia,  is  the  habitat  of  the  single-horned  animal  which  is  as 
big  as  a  horse,  very  light  and  swift,  and  yellow  in  color.  On  its  head 
it  has  a  horn,  four  to  five  feet  long,  of  bright  color.  It  is  made  into 
drinking-vessels  which  are  capable  of  neutralizing  poison.  As  the 
horn  is  pointed,  the  animal  can  charge  a  big  lion.  The  lion,  while 
struggling  with  it,  takes  refuge  behind  a  tree;  and  when  missing  its 
aim,  it  butts  the  tree,  while  the  lion  bites  it  at  this  moment."  In  Fig.  2, 
the  pi  kio  shou  referred  to  by  Mr.  Giles  is  pictured.  Verbiest  com- 
ments, "The  locality  Kang-pa-ya3  in  India,  situated  on  the  continent  of 
Asia,  is  the  habitat  of  an  animal  called  'nose-horn'  [rendering  of  'rhi- 
noceros']. Its  body  is  as  powerful  as  that  of  the  elephant,  but  its  feet 
are  somewhat  shorter.  Its  trunk  is  covered  all  over  with  red  and 
yellow  spots,  and  is  overlaid  with  scales.  Arrows  cannot  pierce  it.  On 
its  nose  there  is  a  single  horn  as  strong  as  steel.  It  prepares  for  its 
battles  with  the  elephant  by  whetting  its  horn  on  the  rocks;  and  hitting 

1  This  is  a  debatable  point.   The  two  illustrations  do  not  resemble  bovine  animals, 
but  deer  (see  Figs.  9  and  10  on  pp.   102  and   103).     The  "bovine  animal  with 
one  horn"  first  appears  in  LIONEL  GILES,  An  Alphabetical  Index  to  the  Chinese 
Encyclopaedia,  p.  5  (London,  1911). 

2  WYLIE,  Notes  on  Chinese  Literature,  p.  58;  M.  COURANT,  Catalogue  des  livres 
chinois,  p.  95;  H.  CORDIER,  L'imprimerie  sino-europe'enne  en  Chine,  p.  59;  P.  PELLIOT 
Bulletin  de  I' Ecole  frangaise  d' Extreme-Orient,  Vol.  Ill,  1903,  pp.  109,  115. 

*  That  is,  Khambayat  or  Cambay,  in  the  western  part  of  the  province  of  Gujarat. 


HISTORY  or  THE  RHINOCEROS  79 

the  elephant 's  paunch ,  it  kills  it . "  The  alleged  combats  of  the  rhinoceros 
with  the  lion  and  elephant  are  classical  reminiscences  (see  p.  84)  which 
are  absent  from  Chinese  folk-lore.  Verbiest  repeats  the  popular  tradi- 
tions current  at  his  time  in  Europe,  and  like  Cosmas  Indicopleustes, 
still  discriminates  between  the  monoceros  or  unicornis  (tu  kio)  and  the 
rhinoceros  (pi  kio),  illustrating  the  former  by  the  unicorn  of  European 
heraldry.  Consequently  the  terms  employed  by  Verbiest  are  literal 
translations  of  European  nomenclature  into  Chinese,  made  by  Verbiest 
for  his  purpose;  and  the  word  pi  kio  cannot  be  claimed,  as  has  been  done 
by  Mr.  Giles,  as  a  genuine  term  of  the  Chinese  language.  It  is  a  foreign 
term  not  employed  by  the  Chinese.  Indeed,  in  a  long  series  of  Chinese 
texts  dealing  with  the  rhinoceros,  and  given  below,  not  any  use  of  this 
name  is  made.  Only  a  single  case  is  known  to  me:  the  Manchu- 
Chinese  dictionary  Ts'ing  wtn  pu  hui  of  1786  (Ch.  4,  p.  23)  explains  the 
Manchu  word  sufen  by  the  said  pi  kio,  adding  the  definition,  "a  strange 
animal  bred  in  Cambaya  in  India,  like  an  elephant,  with  short  feet, "  etc., 
the  same  as  given  by  Verbiest.  This,  accordingly,  is  a  mere  repetition 
of  the  latter's  statement,  and  is  not  conclusive.  Curiously  enough,  that 
expression  which  Mr.  Giles  credits  as  the  only  authentic  word  for 
"rhinoceros"  is  given  a  quite  different  meaning  in  the  Polyglot  Dictionary 
of  K'ien-lung  (Appendix,  Ch.  4,  p.  75),  where  we  find  the  series  Chin. 
pi  kio  shou,  Manchu  sufen,  Tibetan  ba-men,  Mongol  bamin.  The  Tibet- 
an word  ba-men,  reflected  in  Marco  Polo's  beyamini,1  denotes  the  gayal 
wild  ox  (Bos  gavaeus).  Whether  this  equation,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  is 
correct,  is  certainly  a  debatable  question;  but  this  point  does  not  concern 
us  here.  The  point  to  be  brought  out  is  that  pi  kio  in  the  sense  of 
"rhinoceros"  is  a  term  coined  by  Verbiest,  and  that  it  has  not  yet  been 
pointed  out  in  any  Chinese  text  prior  to  his  time.2  Simultaneously 
Mr.  Giles's  argument  directed  against  Hirth  — "the  T'u  shu  expressly 

1  See  the  writer's  Chinese  Pottery,  p.  260,  note  4. 

1  The  general  Chinese  expression  for  rhinoceros-horn  which  is  even  now  traded 
to  Canton  and  there  made  into  carvings  is  still  5*  kio;  hence  it  follows  that  at  the 
present  day  the  designation  of  the  animal  itself,  as  it  has  been  for  several  millenniums, 
is  the  word  si.  The  English  and  Chinese  Standard  Dictionary  of  the  Commercial 
Press,  issued  by  a  commission  of  Chinese  scholars,  who  must  know  their  language, 
renders  the  word  "rhinoceros"  into  se  niu  and  se  (Vol.  II,  p.  1919).  COUVREUR  (Diet, 
francais-chinois,  2d  ed.)  has  likewise  se  niu.  DOOLITTLE  (Hand-Book  of  the  Chinese 
Language,  Vol.  I,  p.  411)  gives  under  "rhinoceros"  si,  se  niu,  and  si  niu.  SCHLEGEL 
(Nederlandsch-chineesch  Woordenboek,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  622)  renders  the  word  by  se,  si, 
and  si  niu.  True  it  is  that  in  recent  times  the  words  se  and  si  have  been  transferred 
to  bovine  animals,  and  the  Chinese  themselves  are  well  aware  of  this  fact.  Thus 
Li  Shi-chen,  in  his  Pen  ts'ao  kang  mu,  remarks  that  the  term  "hairy  rhinoceros  "is  at 
present  referred  to  the  yak  (see  p.  1 50).  This,  however,  as  will  be  established  by  abun- 
dant evidence,  was  not  the  case  in  former  times.  In  fact,  these  recent  adjustments 
prove  nothing  for  conditions  which  obtained  in  earlier  periods.  The  question  as  to 
how  the  word  se  became  transferred  to  the  buffalo  is  discussed  on  p.  161,  note  5. 


8o  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

says  that  arrows  cannot  pierce  the  hide  of  the  rhinoceros" —  falls  to  the 
ground.  This  is  a  verdict  of  Verbiest,  and  not  to  be  encountered  in  any 
Chinese  report  regarding  the  rhinoceros.  It  is,  moreover,  an  argument 
of  no  meaning  and  no  value;  it  is  simply  a  popular  notion  of  fabulous 
character. 

The  numerous  stories  formerly  current  anent  the  rhinoceros  chiefly 
culminated  in  three  points, —  its  ferocity,  the  use  of  its  horn  as  a  weapon 
of  attack,  and  its  invulnerability.  These  notions  have  been  refuted  by 
close  observation.  We  quote  an  authority,  R.  LYDEKKER  :  *  "  Fortunate- 
ly, in  spite  of  stories  to  the  contrary,  the  creature  in  its  wild  state  appears 
to  be  of  a  mild  and  harmless  disposition,2  seeking  rather  to  escape  from 

1  The  Game  Animals  of  India,  Burma,  Malaya,  and  Tibet,  p.  31  (London,  1907). 

2  Certainly;  it  is  easily  kept  in  confinement  and  tamed,  and  has  often  been  trans- 
ported over  vast  tracts  of  water  and  land.    A  good  example  of  the  overland  trans- 
portation of  a  tamed  rhinoceros  or  several  animals  is  furnished  by  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  in  the 
chapter  on  the  Imperial  Sacrifices  to  Heaven  and  Earth,  when  this  animal  together 
with  an  elephant  was  conducted  as  far  as  the  foot  of  Mount  T'ai  in  Shan-tung  with 
a  possible  view  to  their  being  sacrificed;  but  the  Emperor  spared  their  lives,  and  the 
animals  were  allowed  to  return  (see  CHAVANNES,  Les  Me"moires  historiques  de  Se-ma 
Ts'ien,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  502).    The  following  tributes  of  living  rhinoceroses  are  on  record. 
In  the  year  2  A.D.  the  country  Huang-chi  (south  of  Tonking,  30,000  li  from  the  capital 
of  China)  sent  a  living  rhinoceros  as  tribute  to  the  Court  of  China,  as  mentioned 
three  times  in  the  Ts'ien  Han  shu  (Ch.  27  B,  p.  17  b).     These  texts  have  recently 
been  studied  by  PAUL  PELLIOT  (T'oung  Poo,  1912,  pp.  457-460),  who  has  revealed 
their  fundamental  importance  for  the  history  of  Chinese  relations  with  the  countries 
of  the  Indian  Ocean  in  the  first  century  of  our  era.    On  the  basis  of  Pelliot's  transla- 
tions, the  country  Huang-chi  has  recently  been  made  the  object  of  an  interesting 
geographical  study  on  the  part  of  A.  HERRMANN  (Ein  alter  Seeverkehr  zwischen 
Abessinien  und  Siid-China  bis   zum  Beginn  unserer  Zeitrechnung,  Zeitschrift  der 
Gesellschaft  fur  Erdkunde  zu  Berlin,   1913,  pp.  553-561).     This  author  identifies 
Huang-chi  with  Abyssinia  mainly  on  the  ground  that  the  rhinoceros  occurs  there. 
This  argument  is  not  cogent,  since  the  home  of  the  animal  is  in  all  parts  of  both  In- 
dias,  Borneo,  Java,  and  Sumatra  as  well.    Also  for  other  reasons  this  identification  is 
unfortunate.    The  transportation  of  a  live  rhinoceros  from  Abyssinia  to  China  over 
a  maritime  route  would  have  been  a  feat  impossible  in  those  days,  in  view  of  the  im- 
perfect state  of  navigation,  while  it  could  easily  have  been  accomplished,  if  Huang-chi, 
as  assumed  by  me,  was  located  on  the  Malayan  Peninsula ;  and  as  shown  by  the  Chinese 
records,  the  live  rhinoceroses  all  hailed  from  Indo-China  or  Java.     The  name  Huang- 
chi,  moreover,  cannot  be  derived  from  Aghazi,  as  HERRMANN  thinks.    His  decisive 
argument  in  support  of  this  theory  is,  of  course,  the  statement  in  the  Chinese  text 
that  Huang-chi  is  30,000  li  distant  from  Ch'ang-ngan,  the  then  capital  of  China.    Mr. 
Herrmann  unreservedly  accepts  this  as  a  fact,  and  is  in  this  manner  carried  away  to 
eastern  Africa.    We  have  known  for  a  long  time  (in  fact,  the  Jesuits  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century  knew  it)  that  the  Chinese  definitions  of  distances  over  maritime  routes 
must  not  be  taken  at  their  surface  value.     Nor  have  we  any  reason  to  be  more  Chinese 
in  this  respect  than  the  Chinese  themselves.    The  following  is  expressly  stated  in  the 
Sung  shu,  the  History  of  the  Liu  Sung  Dynasty  (420-478  A.D.;  Ch.  91):     "The 
southern  and  south-western  barbarians,  generally  speaking,  live  to  the  south  and 
south-west  of  Kiao-chi  (northern  Annam),  and  also  inhabit  the  islands  in  the  great 
ocean;  the  distance  is  about  three  to  five  thousand  li  for  those  that  are  nearer,  and 
twenty  to  thirty  thousand  li  for  those  that  are  farther  away.     When  sailing  in  a 
vessel  it  is  difficult  to  compute  the  length  of  the  road,  and  therefore  we  must  recollect 
that  the  number  of  li,  given  with  respect  to  the  barbarians  of  the  outer  countries, 
must  not  be  taken  as  exact"  (see  GROENEVELDT,  in  Miscellaneous  Papers  relating  to 
Indo-China,  Vol.  I,  p.  127).    It  is  plainly  indicated  in  this  passage  that  the  distances 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  81 

its  enemies  by  flight  than  to  rout  them  by  attack.  When  badly  wound- 
ed, or  so  hustled  about  by  elephants  and  beaters  as  to  become  be- 
wildered, a  rhinoceros  will,  however,  occasionally  charge  home.  In 
such  onslaughts  it  is  the  common  belief  that  the  animal,  like  its  African 
cousins,  uses  its  horn  as  its  weapon  of  offence;  but  this  is  an  error,  the 
real  weapons  being  the  triangular,  sharp-pointed  low  tusks."  The 
same  author  states  in  another  work1  on  the  skin  of  the  animal,  "From 
the  immense  thickness  and  apparent  toughness  of  its  enormous  folds, 
it  was  long  considered  that  the  hide  of  the  Indian  rhinoceros  was  bullet- 
proof, and  that  the  only  places  where  the  animal  was  vulnerable  were 
the  joints  of  the  armor.  ...  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  skin  of  the 
living  animal  is  quite  soft,  and  can  readily  be  penetrated  in  any  place 
by  a  bullet,  or  easily  pierced  by  a  hunting  knife.  When  dried  it  becomes, 
however,  exceedingly  hard;  and  it  was  formerly  employed  by  the 
Indian  princes  in  the  manufacture  of  shields  for  their  soldiery." 

given  for  the  routes  in  the  southern  ocean  are  not  exact,  and  that  a  description  of 
twenty  to  thirty  thousand  li  is  nothing  but  a  convention  to  denote  the  very  remote 
barbarians  of  the  south.  Compare,  on  Chinese  calculations  of  sea-routes,  particularly 
G.  SCHLEGEL  (T'oung  Pao,  Vol.  Ill,  1892,  pp.  161-5).  In  Hou  Han  shu  (Ch.  116, 
p.  3  a)  the  location  of  Huang-chi  is  positively  indicated  as  being  south  of  Ji-nan  (Ton- 
king),  which  means  that  it  was  situated  on  the  Malayan  Peninsula.  In  84  A.D.  the 
Man  I  beyond  the  boundary  of  Ji-nan  offered  to  the  Court  a  living  rhinoceros  and 
a  white  pheasant  (Hou  Han  shu,  Ch.  1 16,  p.  3  b).  In  94  A.D.  the  tribes  in  the  south- 
west of  Sze-ch'uan  sent  an  envoy  and  interpreter  presenting  a  rhinoceros  and  a  big 
elephant  (ibid.,  Ch.  116,  p.  8  b).  At  the  time  of  the  Emperor  Ling  (168-188  A.D.) 
of  the  Later  Han  dynasty,  Kiu-chenin  Tonking  despatched  a  living  rhinoceros  to  the 
Chinese  Court  (Huan  yu  ki,  and  Ta  Ming  i  t'ung  chi,  ed.  of  1461,  Ch.  90,  fol.  5,  where 
it  is  said  also  that  at  the  time  of  the  Yuan  dynasty  [1260-1367]  Annam  presented  a 
rhinoceros).  In  539  Fu-nan  sent  a  live  rhinoceros  (Liang  shu,  Ch.  54,  p.  4).  A  similar 
report  in  regard  to  the  country  of  Ho-ling  (Java)  occurs  in  819  A.D.  at  the  time  of  the 
T'ang  dynasty  (Kiu  T'ang  shu,  Ch.  197,  p.  2  b).  Finally  the  poets  Yuan  Chen 
(779-831;  GILES,  Biographical  Dictionary,  p.  964)  and  Po  Ku-i  have  celebrated  in 
verse  a  tame  rhinoceros  which  had  been  sent  as  tribute  in  the  year  796 ;  it  was  housed 
in  the  Shang-lin  palace,  and  an  official  was  appointed  to  care  for  it;  but  in  the  winter 
of  the  following  year  when  great  cold  set  in,  the  poor  creature  died.  In  1009  Kiao-chi 
(Annam)  presented  a  tame  rhinoceros  to  the  Court  (Sung  shi,  Ch.  489),  and  there 
are  other  similar  reports  by  the  essayists  of  the  Sung  period. — TA  VERNIER  (Travels 
in  India,  ed.  V.  BALL,  Vol.  I,  p.  1 14)  saw  a  rhinoceros  eating  stalks  of  millet  presented 
to  it  by  a  small  boy;  encouraged  by  this  sight,  the  traveller  seized  some  stalks,  and 
the  rhinoceros  at  once  approached  him,  opening  its  mouth  four  or  five  times;  he 
placed  some  stalks  in  it,  and  when  the  animal  had  eaten  them,  it  continued  to  open 
its  mouth  to  receive  some  more.  Tame  rhinoceroses,  to  which  a  good  deal  of  freedom 
was  allowed,  were  formerly  not  uncommonly  kept  by  the  Rajas  of  India.  Surely,  not 
only  men,  but  also  animals,  are  usually  better  than  their  reputation  among  men.  One 
of  the  most  notable  facts  about  the  behavior  of  the  rhinoceros  in  captivity,  as  al- 
ready observed  by  DARWIN  (The  Variation  of  Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestica- 
tion, Vol.  II,  p.  165,  Murray's  edition,  1905),  is  that  under  this  condition  it  breeds  in 
India  far  more  readily  than  the  elephant.  The  captive  elephants,  in  contrast  to  the 
rhinoceros,  as  pointed  out  by  Darwin  and  confirmed  by  others  (E.  HAHN,  Kultur- 
geschichte  der  Haustiere,  p.  37),  but  very  rarely  breed;  as  a  rule,  they  do  not  even 
copulate.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  rhinoceros  possesses  the  qualities  fitting  it  for 
domestication,  and  that  only  the  lack  of  promising  advantages  has  prevented  man 
from  embarking  on  such  a  plan. 

1  The  New  Natural  History,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1055-1056. 


82  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

Naturally  the  skin  of  the  animal  is  as  soft  and  sensitive  as  that  of  any 
other  living  creature,  and  arrows  are  certainly  painful  to  it.  Only 
when  properly  prepared  and  dried  does  the  skin  assume  that  iron-like 
hardness  which  has  achieved  its  reputation  and  probably  caused  the 
fable  of  its  being  impenetrable  in  the  live  beast.  The  account  of  the 
Arab  envoy  given  in  993  to  the  Chinese  Emperor,  that  "to  capture  a 
rhinoceros,  a  man  with  a  bow  and  arrow  climbs  a  big  tree,  where  he 
watches  for  the  animal  until  he  can  shoot  and  kill  it,"  as  narrated  by 
Chao  Ju-kua,  is  entirely  trustworthy.1  The  fable  lies  entirely  in  the 
"arrows  cannot  pierce  the  hide,"  to  which  Mr.  Giles  gives  credence. 
When  it  is  said,  "he  rips  up  a  man  with  his  horn,"  Chao  Ju-kua  simply 
accepts  the  belief  of  all  his  contemporaries,  eastern  and  western;  and  the 
remark  certainly  proves  that  he  speaks  of  the  rhinoceros,  while  it  is  no 
argument  in  favor  of  Mr.  Giles's  opinion  that  the  animal  in  question  is 
not  the  rhinoceros. 

While  the  general  result  at  which  Mr.  Giles  has  arrived  is  not 
novel,  being  partly  anticipated,  as  we  have  seen,  by  Biot,  Palladius,  and 
Couvreur,  his  arguments,  as  summed  up  above  under  No.  3,  are  original, 
and  deserve  serious  consideration  and  discussion.  What  appears  to 
Mr.  Giles  as  the  most  weighty  evidence  in  favor  of  his  view  are  the 
queer  Chinese  illustrations  of  the  two  animals.  Queer  they  are,  but 
we  must  make  an  attempt  at  understanding  and  explaining  them.  For 
this  reason,  we  shall  first  enter  on  a  somewhat  lengthy  digression  into  the 
iconography  of  the  rhinoceros;  and  it  will  be  seen  that  this,  as  every- 

1  The  effect  of  arrows  on  the  rhinoceros  is  well  illustrated  in  the  following  story  of 
CASPAR  CORREA,  who  went  to  India  in  1512,  and  wrote  a  detailed  chronicle  of  the 
Portuguese  possessions  there.  He  describes  a  battle  of  Bang  Cacandar,  who  availed 
himself  of  elephants  fighting  with  swords  upon  their  tusks,  and  in  front  of  them  were 
arrayed  eighty  rhinoceroses  (gandas)  "carrying  on  their  horns  three-pronged  iron 
weapons  with  which  they  fought  very  stoutly  .  .  .  and  the  Mogors  with  their 
arrows  made  a  great  discharge,  wounding  many  of  the  elephants  and  the  gandas, 
which  as  they  felt  the  arrows,  turned  and  fled,  breaking  up  the  battles"  .  .  .  (quoted 
by  YULE  and  BURNELL,  Hobson-Jobson,  p.  363).  In  India  rhinoceroses  were  hunted 
with  sabre,  lance,  and  arrows.  Timur  killed  on  the  frontier  of  Kashmir  several  rhi- 
noceroses with  sabre  and  lances,  although  this  animal  has  such  a  hard  skin  that  it  can 
be  pierced  only  by  extraordinary  efforts  (PETis  DE  LA  CROIX,  Histoire  de  Timur  Bee, 
Vol.  Ill,  p.  159,  quoted  by  YULE  and  BURNELL,  Hobson-Jobson,  p.  762).  In  Baber's 
Memoirs  (quoted  ibid.)  a  rhinoceros-hunt  is  described  in  these  words:  "A  she 
rhinoceros,  that  had  whelps,  came  out,  and  fled  along  the  plain;  many  arrows  were 
shot  at  her,  but  .  .  .  she  gained  cover."  The  hunters  of  Java  hide  sickle-shaped 
knives  under  the  moss  on  steep  mountain-paths;  the  animal,  dragging  its  paunch 
almost  close  to  the  ground,  rips  up  itself,  and  is  then  easily  mastered  (P.  J.  VETH, 
Java,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  289,  Haarlem,  1903).  HOSE  and  McDouGALL  (The  Pagan  Tribes 
of  Borneo,  Vol.  I,  p.  145,  London,  1912)  have  this  observation  to  report:  "Punans, 
who  hunt  without  dogs  (which  in  fact  they  do  not  possess),  will  lie  in  wait  for  the 
rhinoceros  beside  the  track,  along  which  he  comes  to  his  daily  mud-bath,  and  drive 
a  spear  into  his  flank  or  shoulder;  then,  after  hastily  retiring,  they  track  him  through 
the  jungle,  until  they  come  upon  him  again,  and  find  an  opportunity  of  driving  in 
another  spear  or  a  poisoned  dart  through  some  weak  spot  of  his  armor." 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  83 

thing  else  connected  with  the  animal,  is  an  attractive  subject  of  great 
culture-historical  interest.  It  should  be  stated  at  the  outset  that  the 
Chinese  sketches  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Giles,  and  other  Chinese  illustra- 
tions as  well,  can  never  have  been  intended  for  any  bovines,  whatever 
the  alleged  bovine  character  in  the  animal  may  be;  for  there  is  in  this 
world  no  bovine  animal  with  a  single  horn  and  three  toes  which,  as  will 
be  shown,  appear  in  the  early  Chinese  definition,  and  are  plainly  out- 
lined in  the  sketch  of  the  rhinoceros  said  in  the  Erh  ya  to  be  of  hog-like 
appearance  (Fig.  6).1  The  single  horn  and  the  three  toes,  however, 
are  thoroughly  characteristic  of  the  rhinoceros,  and  of  this  animal 
exclusively.  But  we  are  first  going  to  study  the  psychology  of  the  case. 
On  the  first  day  of  May  of  the  year  1515  the  first  live  rhinoceros  was 
brought  to  modern  Europe  from  India  by  Portuguese,  and  presented  to 
King  Emanuel  of  Portugal.2  In  commemoration  of  this  event,  Albrecht 
Diirer,  who  took  a  deep  interest  in  exotic  animals  and  people,  sketched 
in  the  same  year  a  likeness  of  this  rhinoceros,  published  as  a  wood- 
engraving,  with  a  somewhat  lengthy  description  in  German.  Durer's 
original  drawing  is  still  preserved  in  the  British  Museum  (Plate  IX).8  It 
is  so  weak  that,  as  already  pointed  out  by  Dr.  PARSONS,*  the  first  serious 


1  See  likewise  Fig.  9,  p.  102. 

I  The  history  of  this  event  is  narrated  in  the  Decadas  de  Asia  of  J.  DE  BARROS 
(quoted  by  YULE  and  BURNELL,  Hobson-Jobson,  p.  363):    "And  in  return  for  many 
rich  presents  which  this  Diogo  Fernandez  carried  to  the  King,  and  besides  others 
which  the  King  sent  to  Affonso  Alboquerque,  there  was  an  animal,  the  biggest  which 
Nature  has  created  after  the  elephant,  and  the  great  enemy  of  the  latter  .  .  .  which 
the  natives  of  the  land  of  Cambaya,  whence  this  one  came,  call  Ganda,  and  the  Greeks 
and  Latins  Rhinoceros.    And  Affonso  d'Alboquerque  sent  this  to  the  King  Don  Man- 
uel, and  it  came  to  this  Kingdom,  and  it  was  afterwards  lost  on  its  way  to  Rome,  when 
the  King  sent  it  as  a  present  to  the  Pope." 

I 1  am  indebted  to  Mr.  Laurence  Binyon  of  the  British  Museum  for  his  courtesy 
in  favoring  me  with  a  copy  of  this  wood-engraving,  from  which  our  reproduction  is 
made.    The  particulars  of  the  history  of  this  engraving  are  discussed  by  C.  DODGSON 
(Catalogue  of  Early  German  and  Flemish  Woodcuts  in  the  British  Museum,  Vol.  I, 
p.  307,  London,  1903). 

*  Die  naturliche  Historic  des  Nashorns,  welche  von  Doctor  PARSONS  in  einem 
Schreiben  an  MARTIN  FOLKES,  Rittern  und  Prasidenten  der  Koniglich-Englischen 
Societat  abgefasset,  mit  zuverlaissigen  Abbildungen  versehen,  und  aus  dem  Englischen 
in  das  Deutsche  ubersezet  worden  von  Doctor  GEORG  LEONHART  HUTH,  Nurnberg, 
bey  Stein  und  Raspe,  1747.  The  English  original  of  this  interesting  pamphlet  of  16 
pages  in  quarto  is  not  known  to  me.  It  is  accompanied  by  three  plates  engraved  on 
copper  representing  the  first  fairly  exact  figures  of  the  rhinoceros  in  various  views, 
its  horn  and  other  organs  of  its  body.  An  anonymous  copper-engraving  was  pub- 
lished in  1748  under  the  title,  "Vera  effigies  Rhinocerotis  qui  in  Asia,  et  quidem  in 
terris  Mogolis  Magni  in  regione  Assam  captus  et  anno  1741  tertio  aetatis  anno  a 
capitano  Douvemont  van  der  Meer  ex  Bengala  in  Belgium  translatus  est."  This 
rhinoceros,  a  three  years  old  animal,  was  exhibited  in  Holland  in  1741,  and  styled  on 
the  placards  the  behemoth  of  the  Bible  (JOB,  40)  and  the  unicorn  of  mediaeval  times. 
It  proved  an  overwhelming  sensation.  In  1747  it  made  its  appearance  at  Leipzig 
where  GELLERT  set  it  a  literary  monument  in  the  poem  with  the  beginning,  "In 
order  to  behold  the  rhinoceros,  I  was  told  by  my  friend,  I  resolved  to  stroll  out."  In 


84 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


student  of  the  anatomy  of  the  rhinoceros,  it  is  impossible  to  assume  that 
he  had  ever  seen  the  animal.  This  fact  is  quite  certain,  for  it  is  known 
that  the  King  of  Portugal  despatched  the  animal  to  the  Pope,  and  that  it 
was  drowned  off  Geneva  when  the  vessel  on  board  which  it  was  being 
carried  was  foundered.  The  only  supposition  that  remains,  therefore,  is 
that  some  one  of  Lisbon  near  King  Emanuel  must  have  sent  on  to  Diirer 
a  rough  outline-sketch  of  the  novel  and  curious  creature,  which  was  im- 
proved and  somewhat  adorned  by  the  great  artist.  But  to  what  sources 
did  he  turn  for  information  on  the  subject?  Naturally  to  that  fountain- 
head  from  which  all  knowledge  was  drawn  during  that  period,  the  au- 
thors of  classical  antiquity. 
The  fact  that  Durer  really 
followed  this  procedure  is 
evidenced  by  the  very  de- 
scription of  the  animal, 
which  he  added  to  his 
sketch,  and  in  which  he 
reiterates  the  story  of  the 
ancients  regarding  the  eter- 
nal enmity  and  struggle  of 
rhinoceros  and  elephant.1 
The  most  curious  feature 
about  Durer's  rhinoceros  is 

Marble  Relief  of  Two-Horned  Rhinoceros  in  Pompeii  . 

(from  O.  Keller,  Antike  Tierwelt).  that,    besides    the    hOITl    On 


1748  it  reached  Augsburg  where  Johann  Ridinger  made  a  drawing  and  etching  of  it 
with  the  title  as  stated  (L.  REINHARDT,  Kulturgeschichte  der  Nutztiere,  p.  751, 
Munchen,  1912).  The  rhinoceros  is  a  subject  which  for  obvious  reasons  has  seldom 
tempted  an  artist.  It  should  be  emphasized  that  no  artist  has  ever  made  even  a 
tolerably  good  sketch  of  it,  and  that  only  photography  has  done  it  full  justice. 

1  According  to  the  tales  of  the  ancients,  the  feuds  between  the  two  animals  were 
fought  for  the  sake  of  watering-places  and  pastures;  and  the  rhinoceros  prepared  it- 
self for  the  combat  by  sharpening  its  horn  on  the  rocks  in  order  to  better  rip  the  arch- 
enemy's paunch  which  it  knows  to  be  its  softest  part  (compare  DIODOR,  i,  36;  AELIAN, 
Nat.  animalium,  xvii,  44;  PAUSANIAS,  ix,  21;  and  PLINY,  Nat.  hist.,  vin,  20:  alter 
hie  genitus  hostis  elephanto  cornu  ad  saxa  limato  praeparat  se  pugnae,  in  dimicatione 
alvum  maxime  petens,  quam  scit  esse  molliorem).  The  same  story  is  still  repeated  by 
JOHAN  NEUHOF  (Die  Gesantschaft  der  Ost-Indischen  Gesellschaft  [1655-57],  p.  349, 
Amsterdam,  1669)  in  his  description  of  the  Chinese  rhinoceros,  which  is  based  on 
classical,  not  Chinese  reports:  "  It  makes  permanent  war  on  the  elephant,  a_nd  when 
ready  to  fight,  it  whets  its  horn  on  stones.  In  the  struggle  with  the  elephant  it  always 
hits  toward  its  paunch  where  it  is  softest,  and  when  it  has  opened  a  hole  there,  it 
desists,  and  allows  it  to  bleed  to  death.  It  grunts  like  a  hog;  its  flesh  eaten  by  the 
Moors  is  so  tough  that  only  teeth  of  steel  could  bite  it."  The  Brahmans  allowed  the 
flesh  of  the  rhinoceros  to  be  eaten  as  a  medicine  (M.  CHAKRAVARTI,  Animals  in  the 
Inscriptions  of  Piyadasi,  Memoirs  As.  Soc.  of  Bengal,  Vol.  I,  p.  371,  Calcutta,  1906); 
according  to  al-Berunl  (SACHAU,  Alberuni's  India,  Vol.  I,  p.  204),  they  had  the 
privilege  of  eating  its  flesh.  CTESIAS  stated  wrongly  that  the  flesh  is  so  bitter  that  it 
is  not  eaten. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  85 

its  nose,  it  is  provided  with  another  smaller  horn  on  its  neck.  This 
proves  that  he  must  have  read  about  a  two-horned  rhinoceros,  for  the 
specimen  shipped  to  Portugal  was  the  single-horned  species  of  India. 
MARTIAL,  in  one  of  his  epigrams  (Sped.  Ep.  XXII),  has  the  verse, 
"namque  gravem  gemino  cornu  sic  extultt  ursum."  As  long  as  the  fact 
of  a  two-horned  rhinoceros  was  not  yet  scientifically  established, — 
and  Dr.  Parsons  was  one  of  the  first  to  point  it  out, —  the  critics  of 
Martial  felt  greatly  embarrassed  over  the  statement  that  a  rhinoceros 
with  double  horn1  should  have  lifted  a  bear,  and  arbitrarily  changed 
the  verse  in  various  ways  to  get  around  the  double  horn.  Diirer  no 
doubt  had  this  passage  in  mind,  and  accepted  it  as  a  fact.  Nobody  at 
that  time,  however,  knew  the  location  of  the  second  horn:  thus  it  found 
its  place  on  the  neck.2  This  case  is  very  instructive,  for  the  Chinese 

1  The  two-horned  African  rhinoceros  is  figured  on  the  bronze  coins  of  Emperor 
Domitian  and  on  Alexandrian  coins  of  the  same  emperor  (IMHOOF-BLUMER  and  KEL- 
LER, Tier-  und  Pflanzenbilder  auf  Mflnzen  und  Gemmen,  Plate  IV,  8),  and  unmis- 
takably referred  to  by  PAUSANIAS  (/.  c.),  who  describes  it  as  having  the  one  horn  on 
the  extremity  of  its  nose,  the  other,  not  very  large,  above  the  latter.    The  struggle 
between  bear  and  rhinoceros  is  represented  on  a  pottery  lamp  from  Labicum,  which  is 
reproduced  in  Fig.  7  after  O.  KELLER  (Tiere  des  classischen  Altertums,  p.  118, 
Innsbruck,  1887),  in  order  to  illustrate  the  affinity  of  this  creature  with  the  "hog-like  " 
rhinoceros  of  the  Chinese  (Fig.  6).      Diirer 's  picture  formerly  led  astray  many  a 
student  of  classical  antiquity  by  giving  the  impression  that  a  horn  was  really  growing 
up  from  the  animal's  back.     Thus  S.  BOCHART,  in  his  Hierozoicon  (p.  931,  Lugduni 
Batavorum,  1692),  a  learned  treatise  on  the  animals  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  makes 
the  following  observation  with  reference  to  the  verse  of  Martial  above  quoted: 
"  Frustra  etiam  id  observatur,  Rhinpcerotem  geminum  habere  cornu.    Alterum  enim 
est  in  dorso,  quo  ursum  extulisse  dici  non  potest.    Itaque  ad  illud  cornu  non  pertinent 
haec  poetae:    gemino  cornu  sic  extulit  ursum."    It  was  Bochart  who  proposed  several 
conjectures  tending  to  ameliorate  Martial's  text.    JOHANNES  BECKMANN  (De  historia 
naturali  veterum  libellus  primus,  p.  129,  Petropoli  et  Goettingae,  1766)  was  the  first 
to  point  out  emphatically  the  actual  truth  in  the  matter,  in  these  words :    ' '  Sed  non 
soli  philologi,  verum  etiam  physici  duo  cornua  neglectis  illis  veterum  locis  [i.e.,  the 
passages  of  Martial  and  Pausanias]  negarunt  Rhinoceroti;  uti  Scheuchzeras,  Peyerus. 
Consultius  fuisset  nee  affirmare  nee  negare.     Hodie  enim  auctoritatibus  gravissi- 
morum  virorum  satis  probatum  est,  esse  Rhinocerotes  etiam  bicornes,  qui  cornu 
alterum  non  in  fronte,  non  in  dorso,  sed  etiam  in  nare  habent."    In  view  of  our  sub- 
ject, it  is  of  especial  interest  to  us  to  note  that  this  truth  was  generally  recognized  in 
Europe  as  late  as  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  while  Chinese  authors  were 
well  informed  on  the  subject  from  the  beginning  of  our  era. 

2  It  has  recently  been  asserted  (compare  the  notice  of  S.  REINACH,  Rebue  archio- 
logique,  1913,  p.  105)  that  the  rhinoceros  on  a  marble  relief  of  Pompeii  (Fig.  3;  repro- 
duced also  by  REINACH,  Repertoire  de  reliefs,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  93;  and  O.  KELLER,  Die 
antike  Tierwelt,  Vol.  I,  p.  388)  is  an  exact  copy  of  the  wood-engraving  by  Durer  and 
accordingly  the  work  of  a  forger.    This  point  of  view  seems  to  me  inadmissible,  and  I 
concur  with  Reinach  in  the  view  that  a  common  antique  model  may  have  been  handed 
down  by  the  illustrators  of  the  bestiaries.     The  most  striking  coincidence  between 
the  rhinoceros  of  Pompeii  and  that  of  Durer  is  the  location  of  the  second  horn  on  the 
neck.    This  argument,  however,  is  not  cogent  in  establishing  a  close  interdependence 
of  the  two;  for  also  in  China,  on  a  picture  of  Yen  Li-pen  of  the  T'ang  period  (Fig.  1 1), 
the  rhinoceros  appears  with  a  horn  on  its  neck,  and  with  scales  on  its  body.    As  the 
artists  all  over  the  world  were  so  much  puzzled  as  to  where  to  place  the  horn  or  horns, 
it  is  perfectly  conceivable  that  Durer,  solely  guided  by  his  reading  of  ancient  writers, 
even  without  having  recourse  to  an  antique  pictorial  representation,  worked  out  his 


86  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

draughtsmen  who  had  set  before  them  the  task  of  portraying  a  rhinoceros 
saw  themselves  in  the  same  predicament  as  Diirer,  in  that  they  were 
lacking  all  personal  experience  of  the  animal,  and  for  this  reason  were 
actuated  by  the  same  psychological  factors.  They,  on  their  part, 
resorted  to  the  classical  definitions  of  the  animal,  as  laid  down  in  the 
ancient  dictionaries  Erh  ya  and  Shuo  w$n;  they  did  not  intend  to  picture 
a  rhinoceros  true  to  nature  and  directly  from  nature,  simply  because  they 
were  deprived  of  this  opportunity,  but  they  composed  and  pieced  to- 
gether the  creature  from  certain  notions  which  they  formed  from  bits 
of  information  gathered  from  their  literary  records.  Whatever  carica- 
tures their  achievements  may  be,  however,  there  cannot  be  the  slightest 
doubt  that  they  intended  to  represent  a  rhinoceros,  not  some  other 
animal.  Diirer's  work,  from  a  scientific  viewpoint,  is  in  details  highly 
inaccurate  and  untrue;  the  modern  naturalist  may  even  pronounce 
the  verdict  that  what  he  represented  is  far  from  resembling  a  rhinoceros 
at  all ;  but  the  bare  fact  remains  —  and  this  is  the  essential  point  — 
that  the  artist,  as  expressly  stated  in  the  legend  by  his  own  hand,  had 
the  intention  of  representing  in  this  work  a  rhinoceros.  As  in  most 
cases,  the  artist  does  not  reproduce  an  object  as  it  appears  in  the  world 
of  reality,  but  conveys  to  us  his  own  notions  of  things  as  they  are  pro- 
jected in  his  mind.  Exactly  as  it  happened  in  China,  so  Durer's  model 
found  many  adherents  and  followers,  even  among  the  naturalists  who 
copied  him  again  and  again,  and  who  surpassed  him  in  fanciful  additions 
of  scales,  wrinkles,  and  other  decorations.  Even  BoNTius,1  who  pre- 
tends that  he  saw  the  animal  in  exotic  forests  and  stables,  and  boasts  of 
furnishing  a  figure  of  it  free  from  Durer's  defects,  represents  it,  instead  of 
with  hoofs,  with  a  paw  very  similar  to  that  of  a  dog,  only  that  it  is 
somewhat  larger. 

own  theory  in  regard  to  the  second  horn.  But  it  is  desirable  that,  as  suggested  by 
Reinach,  the  iconographic  question  should  be  studied  in  detail.  Neither  should  the 
differences  between  the  two  be  overlooked.  Durer's  posterior  horn  is  directly  behind 
the  ears;  in  the  Pompeiian  picture  it  is  far  behind  the  ears,  above  the  front  legs;  in 
the  same  spot  Durer  has  a  small  triangular  point,  the  significance  of  which  is  not  clear. 
It  is  certainly  astonishing  that  the  artists  of  Pompeii  could  commit  this  error,  as  the 
two-horned  African  rhinoceros  was  perfectly  known  in  the  Roman  circus,  and  is 
correctly  represented  on  the  coins  of  Domitian  mentioned  above. — ULYSSES  ALDRO- 
VANDUS  (Quadrupedum  omnium  bisulcorum  historia,  p.  354,  Francofurti,  1647)  has 
the  figure  of  a  rhinoceros,  with  an  additional  horn  in  the  shape  of  a  corkscrew  placed 
on  the  shoulders. 

1  JACOBI  BONTII,  Historiae  naturalis  et  medicae  Indiae  Orie5ntalis  libri  sex,  p.  51 
(Amsterdam,  1658).  The  horn  is  correctly  drawn.  Bdntius  avails  himself  of  the  word 
abada,  which  was  used  by  old  Spanish  and  Portuguese  writers  for  a  rhinoceros,  and 
adopted  by  some  of  the  older  English  narrators.  The  word  is  probably  connected 
with  Malayan  badak,  "rhinoceros"  (see  YULE  and  BURNELL,  Hobson-Jobson,  p.  i). 
In  G.  DE  MENDOZA  (Dell1  historia  del  gran  regno  della  China,  1586,  p.  437)  the  word 
abada  is  identified  with  the  rhinoceros. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS 


Archaeologists  are  agreed  that  the  rhinoceros  (Fig.  4) l  is  represented 
on  the  black  obelisk  of  Salmanassar  (B.C.  860—824)  in  company  with  an 
elephant,  human-looking  apes,  and  long-tailed  monkeys.  This  tribute- 
picture  suggests  to  I.  KENNEDY2  the  first  certain  evidence  of  Baby- 
lonian intercourse  with  India.  The 
animals  formed  part  of  the  tribute 
of  the  Muzri,  an  Armenian  tribe 
living  in  the  mountains  to  the 
north-east  of  Nineveh.3  The 
rhinoceros  is  called  in  the  inscrip- 
tion an  "ox  of  the  river  Sakeya," 
and  Kennedy  criticises  its  repre- 
sentation as  "very  ugly  and  ill- 
drawn."  Indeed,  it  is  no  more  and 
no  less  than  a  bull,  and,  as  far  as 
natural  truth  is  concerned,  much  in- 
ferior to  the  Chinese  sketches.  It 
even  has  cloven  bull-feet,  while 
one  of  the  Chinese  drawings  has 
correctly  three  toes,4  and  the  single 

,  ,  .  .        ,         j        Rhinoceros  from  Obelisk  of   Salmanassar    II 

clumsy  horn  rises  on  its  forehead  (from  o.  Keiier.  Antite 


1  After  O.  KELLER,  Die  antike  Tierwelt,  Vol.  I,  p.  386  (Leipzig,  1909). 

1  The  Early  Commerce  of  Babylon  with  India  (Journal  R.  As.  Soc.,  1898,  p.  259). 

1  According  to  J.  MARQUART  (Untersuchungen  zur  Geschichte  von  Eran,  II, 
p.  101,  Leipzig,  1905),  who  discusses  the  same  passage  in  the  inscription  of  Salmanas- 
sar II,  Muzri  is  the  name  of  a  country  and  mountain-range  (Muzur  Mountains)  west 
of  the  Euphrates,  and  comprising  also  a  part  of  the  mountainous  region  south  of  the 
river.  MARQUART  translates  "cattle  of  the  river  Irkea."  Others,  like  Schrader, 
Hommel,  and  W.  Max  Muller  (see  B.  MEISSNER,  Assyrische  Jagden,  p.  20,  Leipzig, 
1911)  identify  Muzri  with  Egypt.  KENNEDY  does  not  explain  how  the  rhinoceros 
could  have  gotten  into  that  region  from  India;  and  it  may  have  been,  after  all,  an 
African  species,  although  the  single  horn  would  rather  point  to  India;  the  elephant, 
however,  in  his  opinion,  came  over  the  passes  of  the  Hindu  Kush.  There  is,  of  course, 
the  possibility  that  the  lower  Euphrates  region  may  have  harbored  the  rhinoceros, 
if  we  can  depend  upon  the  report  of  the  Hou  Han  shu  regarding  the  country  of  T'iao- 
chi  (HIRTH,  China  and  the  Roman  Orient,  p.  38) ;  and  I  am  in  full  accord  with  what 
HIRTH  remarks  on  this  point  hi  the  preface  (pp.  x-xn).  However  this  may  be, 
I  agree  with  KENNEDY,  F.  HOMMEL  (Die  Namen  der  Saugetiere  bei  den  sudsemiti- 
schen  V6lkern,  p.  324),  MEISSNER,  and  KELLER  that  the  animal  figured  on  the  black 
obelisk  of  Salmanassar  is  intended  for  a  rhinoceros,  and  not  merely  for  an  ox,  for  there 
is  no  ox  with  single  horn  as  here  represented.  The  Assyrian  name  for  the  rhinoceros 
is  kur-ki-za-an-nu  =  kurkizannu  (F.  DELITZSCH,  Assyrische  Tiernamen,  p.  56,  Leipzig, 
1874),  wnich'  according  to  HOMMEL  (/.  c.,  p.  328),  is  a  loan-word  received  from 
Ethiopic  karkand  (compare  Arabic  karkadan,  Persian  kerk).  The  trade-relations  of 
India  with  Babylon  are  well  established  (see  particularly  G.  BUHLER,  Indian  Studies 
III,  p.  84). 

4  The  ancients  did  not  notice  this  fact,  nor  did  the  Hindu,  who  classified  the  rhi- 
noceros, owing  to  a  confusion  with  the  elephant,  among  the  five-toed  animals  (M. 
CHAKRAVARTI,  Animals  in  the  Inscriptions  of  Piyadasi,  Memoirs  As.  Soc.  Bengal, 


88  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

between  the  eyes,  as  it  occurs  in  the  armorial  unicorns.  It  is  very 
instructive  to  compare  this  Babylonian  representation  with  those  of  the 
Chinese;  and  whoever  will  view  them  together  will  certainly  grant 
attenuating  circumstances  to  the  latter.  The  Babylonian  production 
is  the  more  surprising,  as  the  supposition  is  granted  that  the  live  animal 
was  sent  as  tribute;  and  the  "artist,"  we  should  think,  had  occasion  to 
actually  see  it.  The  outcome  is  such  a  caricature,  however,  that  this  point 
of  view  seems  impossible;  the  "artist"  simply  acted  on  hearsay,  or  had 
been  instructed  to  represent  a  queer  foreign  animal  of  the  appearance  of 
an  ox,  but  with  only  a  single  horn  on  its  forehead.  And  here  we  are  again 
landing  right  at  the  threshold  of  the  psychology  of  the  Chinese  draughts- 
man who,  most  assuredly,  had  never  throughout  his  life  viewed  any 
living  specimen  of  a  rhinoceros,  but  merely  reconstructed  it  in  a  vision 
of  his  mind  from  what  he  had  heard  or  read.  Nevertheless  his  product 
is  not  what  it  may  seem  to  us  on  the  surface,  but  it  is  and  remains  what 
it  is  intended  for,  —  the  rhinoceros. 

Another  instructive  example  for  the  iconography  of  the  rhinoceros 
is  furnished  by  Cosmas  Indicopleustes,  the  Egyptian  monk  and  traveller 
of  the  sixth  century  A.D.  COSMAS  *  discriminates  between  the  unicorn 
(monokeros)  and  the  "nose-horn"  (rhinokeros) ,  and  has  handed  down  to 
us  sketches  of  both.  In  regard  to  the  former,  he  remarks  that  he  has 
not  seen  it,  but  that  he  had  had  occasion  to  notice  four  brazen  figures 
of  it  set  up  in  the  four-towered  palace  of  the  King  of  Ethiopia,  from 
which  he  was  able  to  draw  it.  His  figure2  looks  somewhat  like  a  missing 
link  between  a  horse  and  a  giraffe,  carrying  on  its  head  a  straight,  long 
horn.  "In  Ethiopia,"  Cosmas  assures  us,  "I  once  saw  a  living  rhi- 
noceros from  a  great  distance  and  saw  also  the  skin  of  a  dead  one  stuffed 
with  chaff,  standing  in  the  royal  palace,  and  thus  I  was  able  to  draw  it 
accurately."  The  result  of  this  "accurate"  drawing  is  the  figure  of  a 
maned  horse  with  bushy  tail,  with  two  horns  planted  upright  on  its 
nose.8  Nobody,  as  far  as  I  know,  has  as  yet  inferred  from  this  figure 
that  the  Greek  word  rhinokeros  relates  to  an  equine  animal  and  should 
be  translated  by  "horse." 

An  interesting  example  of  a  Persian  conception  of  the  rhinoceros 
is  depicted  in  the  Burlington  Magazine.4  This  is  derived  from  an 

Vol.  I,  p.  371,  Calcutta,  1906).  In  the  commentary  of  Kuo  P'o  to  the  dictionary  Erh 
ya  (see  below,  p.  94)  and  in  the  Kiao  chou  ki  of  the  fifth  century  A.D.  it  is  clearly  stated 
that  the  rhinoceros  has  three  toes.  Compare  p.  95,  note  6. 

1  Ed.  MIGNE  (Patrologia,  Vol.  88),  p.  442. 

1  Christian  Topography,  translated  by  MACCRINDLE,  Plate  IV,  No.  28  (Hakluyt 
Society,  1897). 

*  Ibid.,  No.  23. 

4  Vol.  XXIII,  July,  1913,  Plate  III. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  89 

illustrated  "Description  of  Animals,"  the  Manafi-i-heiwan,  translated 
from  Arabic  into  Persian  and  completed  between  1295  and  1300. 
Here  we  have  the  interesting  case  that  the  author  of  this  article,  C. 
ANET,  who  evidently  does  not  read  Persian,  mistakes  the  rhinoceros 
for  "a  horned  gnu."  But  the  picture  is  entitled  in  Persian  kerkeden 
(or  kargadan),  "the  rhinoceros,"  and  it  is  therefore  superfluous  to  dis- 
cuss the  point  that  it  cannot  represent  a  gnu.1  Although  the  creature 
has  the  shape  of  an  ox,  exactly  as  on  the  Assyrian  obelisk  and  in  the 
Chinese  woodcut  (Fig.  5),  with  the  additional  hump  of  a  zebu2  and 
black  antelope-like  stripes  on  its  body,  it  is  unmistakably  characterized 
by  a  single  horn  in  the  form  of  a  crescent.3 

In  order  to  understand  how  the  early  Chinese  illustrations  of  the 
rhinoceros  alluded  to  by  Mr.  Giles  were  made,  it  is  imperative  to  study 
the  ancient  definitions  of  the  two  words  se  and  si.  These  definitions 
are  sufficiently  clear  to  place  us  on  the  right  track  in  nicely  dis- 
criminating between  the  two  words,  which  plainly  refer  to  two  distinct 
species  of  rhinoceros.  The  weak  point  in  Mr.  Giles's  definition  of 
"bovine  animal"4  is  that  it  is  somewhat  generalized,  and  leaves  us 
entirely  in  the  dark  as  to  the  difference  between  the  two  words  se  and  si. 
They  are  physically  differentiated  words,  and  are  expressed  by  different 
symbols  in  writing. 

Se-ma  Ts'ien5  mentions  the  two  species  of  rhinoceros  and  elephant 
as  inhabitants  of  the  country  of  Shu  (Sze-ch'uan).6  The  commentator 

1  A  species  of  antelope  restricted  to  Africa,  which  could  hardly  be  expected  in 
Persian  art. 

1  This  hints  at  the  square-mouthed  or  white  rhinoceros  of  Africa.  One  of  the 
peculiarities  of  this  species  is  the  prominent,  rounded,  fleshy  hump  on  the  nape 
of  the  neck,  just  forward  of  the  withers  (E.  HELLER,  The  White  Rhinoceros,  p.  20, 
Washington,  1913). 

*  A  representation  of  the  rhinoceros  in  sculpture  is  spoken  of  in  a  Persian  descrip- 
tion of  the  province  of  Pars  from  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century;  in  Is^akhr 
the  portrait-statue  of  King  Jamshld  was  erected  in  stone,  with  his  left  hand  grasping 
the  neck  of  a  lion,  or  else  seizing  a  wild  ass  by  the  head,  or  again  he  is  taking  a  unicorn 
(or  rhinoceros)  by  the  horn,  while  in  his  right  hand  he  holds  a  hunting-knife,  which 
he  has  plunged  into  the  belly  of  the  lion  or  unicorn  (G.  LE  STRANGE,  Journal  R.  As. 
Soc.,  1912,  p.  27).  In  the  Annals  of  the  T'ang  Dynasty  it  is  on  record  that  in  746  A.D. 
Persia  offered  a  rhinoceros  and  an  elephant  (CHAVANNES,  T'oung  Poo,  1904,  p.  76). 

4  What  wild  bovine  animal  should  be  understood  has  never  been  indicated. 

6  Shi  ki,  Ch.  117,  pp.  3  b,  7  b. 

8  Our  historians  of  Japan  have  been  greatly  puzzled  by  the  fact  that  the  Japanese 
Buddhist  monk  Tiao-jan  (Japanese  ChOnen),  who  came  to  China  in  984,  stated  in  his 
report  embodied  in  Sung  shi  (Ch.  494,  p.  4  b)  that  there  were  in  his  native  country 
water-buffalo,  donkeys,  sheep,  and  plenty  of  —  thus  it  has  been  translated  — 
rhinoceroses  and  elephants  (for  example,  by  P.  A.  TSCHEPE,  Japans  Beziehungen  zu 
China,  p.  89,  Yen-chou  fu,  1907).  O.  NACHOD  (Geschichte  von  Japan,  Vol.  I,  p.  22) 
went  so  far  as  to  appeal  to  a  misunderstanding  on  the  part  of  the  Japanese  informant, 
which  he  believes  cannot  be  surprising,  as  Tiao-jan,  though  well  versed  in  the  written 
characters  of  the  Chinese,  did  not  understand  their  spoken  language.  This  argu- 


go  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

states,  "The  animal  se  is  built  like  the  water-buffalo.  The  elephant  is  a 
large  animal  with  long  trunk  and  tusks  ten  feet  long;  it  is  popularly 
styled  'river  ape'  (kiang  yuan,  No.  13,741).  The  animal  si  has  a  head 
resembling  that  of  the  ape  yiian  and  a  single  horn  on  its  forehead."1 

mentation  is  entirely  inadmissible.  It  is  certain  that  neither  rhinoceros  nor  elephant 
exists  in  Japan:  consequently  Tiao-jan,  in  using  the  expression  si  siang  (Japanese 
sai-zo)  cannot  be  understood  to  convey  to  it  its  literal  meaning,  but  he  is  sure  to  em- 
ploy it  in  a  different  sense.  Chinese  expressions  (and  Japanese  are  largely  based 
on  them)  do  not  always  mean  what  they  seem  to  imply  on  the  surface,  but  are  often 
literary  allusions  or  reminiscences  of  a  metaphorical  significance.  The  Japanese  monk 
indeed  avails  himself  of  a  Chinese  phrase  of  classical  origin  traceable  to  Meng-tse 
(LEGGE,  Classics,  Vol.  II,  p.  281),  and  in  my  opinion,  simply  means  to  say  that  Japan 
produces  "extraordinary  wild  animals."  Yen  Shi-ku,  defining  the  word  shou  ("wild 
animals")  in  the  Annals  of  the  Han  (Ts'ien  Han  shu,  Ch.  28  A,  p.  4  b),  explains  it  as 
embracing  such  kinds  as  rhinoceros  and  elephants,  whence  it  follows  that  this  com- 
pound si  siang  is  capable  of  rendering  the  general  notion  of  wild  animals.  Si  siang 
has  thus  become  a  stereotyped  term  occurring  in  many  authors,  although  the  literal 
meaning  usually  remains,  as,  for  example,  in  Ts'ien  Han  shu  (Ch.  28  B,  p.  17),  Erh  ya 
(see  p.  94,  note  3),  Nan  shi  (Ch.  78,  p.  7),  T'ang  shu  (Chs.  43  A,  p.  i,  and  221  A, 
p.  10  b), and  in  the  History  of  Shu  (Shu  kien)  written  by  Kuo  Yun-t'aoin  1236  (Ch.  10, 
p.  I,  ed.  of  Shou  shan  ko  ts'ung  shu,  Vol.  23).  HIRTH  and  ROCKHILL  (Chau  Ju-kua, 
p.  1 74)  have  taken  a  different  view  of  the  matter  and  suppose  that  the  document  utilized 
in  the  Sung  Annals,  and  partially  copied  by  Chao  Ju-kua  (inclusive  of  the  statement 
that  Japan  produces  si  siang),  contained  a  number  of  clerical  errors;  they  are  convinced 
that  Tiao-jan's  statement  really  was  to  the  effect  that  there  are  neither  rhinoceroses 
nor  elephants  in  Japan.  There  is  certainly  no  direct  objection  to  be  raised  to  such  a 
point  of  view,  but  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  with  the  indication  as  given  there  is 
no  necessity  of  resorting  to  such  a  conjecture. 

1  This  universal  notion  could  have  emanated  only  from  the  two-horned  species 
with  reference  to  the  rear  horn,  which  anatomically  is  indeed  placed  over  the  frontal 
bone,  while  the  front  horn  is  situated  over  the  conjoined  nasal  bones  (FLOWER  and 
LYDEKKER,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Mammals,  p.  403).  The  posterior  horn 
immediately  follows  the  anterior  one,  and  is  somewhat  beneath  the  eyes.  Curiously 
enough,  this  idea  of  the  position  of  the  horn  on  the  forehead  was  transferred  also  to 
the  single-horned  species,  and  became  a  well-established  tradition,  which  one  author 
copied  from  another.  It  is  found  in  the  classical  world  as  well  as  among  the  Arabic 
authors.  CTESIAS  (ed.  BAEHR,  p.  254)  seems  to  be  the  most  ancient  writer  in  whom 
this  tradition  has  crystallized:  he  describes  the  wild  white  asses  of  India  as  "having 
on  the  forehead  a  horn  a  cubit  and  a  half  in  length."  The  fact  that  he  speaks  of  the 
rhinoceros,  above  all,  is  evidenced  by  his  reference  to  the  horn  being  made  into 
drinking-cups  which  were  a  preventive  of  poisoning  (compare  also  LASSEN,  Indische 
Altertumskunde,  Vol.  II,  p.  646).  The  monoceros  of  India,  in  the  description  of 
PLINY  (Nat.  hist.,  vui,  21),  had  a  single  black  horn  projecting  from  its  forehead, 
two  cubits  in  length  (uno  cornu  nigro  media  fronte  cubitorum  duum  eminente) .  The 
horn  of  the  rhinoceros  sculptured  in  Assyria,  as  we  have  seen,  is  planted  on  its  fore- 
head. Of  course,  when  describing  a  rhinoceros  which  he  saw  at  the  games  in  the  cir- 
cus, PLINY  (vm,  20)  states  correctly  that  it  has  a  single  horn  on  its  nose  (unius  in 
nare  cornus) ;  so  does  AELIAN  (xvn,  44),  and  so  does  likewise  Kuo  P'o.  The  Arabic 
merchant  Soleiman,  writing  in  851  (M.  REINAUD,  Relation  des  voyages  faits  par  les 
Arabes,  Vol.  I,  p.  28),  attributes  to  the  rhinoceros  of  India  a  single  horn  in  the  middle 
of  its  forehead,  and  is  duly  seconded  by  his  copyist  Mas'adi  (RusKA,  Der  Islam, 
Vol.  IV,  p.  164).  Ibn  al-Faqlh,  describing  the  two-horned  species  of  Africa,  states 
that  it  has  on  its  forehead  a  horn,  by  means  of  which  it  inflicts  mortal  wounds;  and 
another  minor  one  is  beneath  the  former  and  placed  between  its  eyes  (E.  WIEDE- 
MANN,  Zur  Mineralogie  im  Islam,  p.  250).  Even  al-Berunl  (E.  SACHAU,  Alberuni's 
India,  Vol.  I,  p.  204),  who  imparts  a  sensible  account  of  the  Indian  rhinoceros,  asserts 
from  hearsay  that  the  African  species  has  a  conical  horn  on  the  skull,  and  a  second 
and  longer  horn  on  the  front.  Early  European  observers  also  believed  that  the 
horn  of  the  rhinoceros  was  growing  on  its  forehead.  BARKER,  as  quoted  by  YULE 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  91 

In  the  other  passage,  the  definition  of  Kuo  P'o  (276-324),  the  editor  of 
the  dictionary  Erh  ya,  is  quoted. 

The  following  definitions  of  the  words  se  and  si  are  given  in  the  an- 
cient dictionary  Shuo  wBn  (about  100  A.D.),  and  are  here  reproduced 
from  an  edition  of  this  work  printed  in  1598,  which  is  an  exact  facsimile 
reproduction  of  the  Sung  edition  of  the  year  986.  In  all  probability, 
this  one  faithfully  mirrors  the  text  of  the  original  issue.  The  definition 
of  se  consists  of  only  five  words:  "  It  is  like  a  wild  ox  and  dark-colored."1 
The  character  is  then  explained  as  a  pictorial  symbol  (compare  the  re- 
production of  the  Chinese  text  on  p.  92). 

It  is  doubtless  on  this  enigmatic  and  incomplete  definition  that  the 
explanations  of  PALLADIUS  and  COUVREUR  (above,  p.  74)  are  based.  In 
order  to  reach  a  satisfactory  result,  however,  it  is  always  necessary  to 
consult  all  records  relating  to  a  case;  and  it  will  always  be  unsafe  to  rely 
upon  a  single  statement,  which,  after  all,  may  have  been  curtailed,  or  in- 
correctly handed  down.  Let  us  note  at  the  outset  that  the  Shuo  w$n  by 
no  means  says  that  the  animal  in  question  is  a  wild  ox,  but  only  that  it  is 
like  one;  a  comparison  with  a  wild  ox  is  not  yet  proof  of  identity  with  it. 
King  Ping  (932—1010),  the  commentator  of  Shuo  wlny  annotates  on  the 
above  passage  as  follows, — "  Its  skin  is  so  strong  and  thick  that  armor  can 
be  made  from  it," —  and  quotes  the  Kiao  chou  ki  *  to  the  effect  that  "  the 
horn  is  over  three  feet  long  and  shaped  like  the  handle  of  a  horse-whip."  * 
The  fact  that  this  author  means  to  speak  of  a  single  horn  becomes 
evident  from  the  statement  of  Kuo  P'o  to  be  cited  presently.4  The 

and  BURNELL  (Hobson-Jobson,  p.  i),wrote  in  1592,  "Now  this  Abath  [abada,  bada 
=  rhinoceros]  is  a  beast  that  hath  one  home  only  in  her  forehead,  and  is  thought  to 
be  the  female  Unicorne,  and  is  highly  esteemed  of  all  the  Moores  in  those  parts  as  a 
most  soveraigne  remedie  against  poyson." 

1  K'ang-hi's  Dictionary  quotes  the  Shuo  win  as  saying  that  "the  animal  se  has 
the  shape  or  body  of  a  wild  ox  and  is  dark-colored." 

*  Records  of  Annam,  of  the  fourth  or  fifth  century,  by  Liu  Hin-k'i  (BRETSCHNEI- 
DER,  Bot.  Sin.,  pt.  I,  p.  159). 

1  In  a  somewhat  different  way,  the  Shuo  win  is  cited  in  Yen  kien  lei  han  (Ch.  430, 
p.  1 6  b),  where  original  text  and  commentary  are  blended  together:  "The  animal  se 
resembles  a  wild  ox  and  has  a  dark-colored  skin  which  is  so  strong  and  thick  that  it 
can  be  worked  up  into  armor.  Among  the  animals  on  the  mountain  Po-chung,  there 
is  a  large  number  of  se."  The  latter  name,  according  to  PALLADIUS,  is  an  ancient 
designation  for  a  mountain  in  the  west  of  Shan-si.  The  fact  that  the  rhinoceros  should 
have  occurred  there  in  ancient  times  is  not  at  all  surprising  (see  the  notes  below  on 
the  distribution  of  the  animal  in  ancient  times).  It  is  noteworthy  that  we  meet  here 
the  reading,  "it  resembles  a  wild  ox,"  in  agreement  with  the  wording  of  the  Erh  ya, 
whence  it  follows  that  the  se  was  not  straightway  looked  upon  as  a  wild  ox,  but  as 
something  else;  it  was  merely  likened  to  it — a  phraseology  which  is  echoed  in  Baby- 
lonia and  in  the  classical  authors.  This  simile  seems  to  account  for  the  erroneous  at- 
tempt of  later  commentators,  like  Chu  Hi,  to  interpret  se  as  identical  with  a  wild  ox. 

4  The  Kiao  chou  ki  is  credited  in  the  Yen  kien  lei  han  with  the  words,  "The  se 
has  a  single  horn  which  is  over  two  feet  long  and  shaped  like  the  handle  of  a  horse- 
whip." 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


J " 


p 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  93 

animal  si  is  defined  in  the  Shuo  w£n  as  "an  ox  occurring  beyond  the 
southern  frontier.  It  has  a  horn  on  its  nose  and  another  one  on  the 
crown  of  its  head;  it  resembles  a  pig."1  This  definition  fits  no  other 
animal  than  the  two-horned  species  of  rhinoceros,  and  has  great  his- 
torical value  as  a  piece  of  evidence  in  determining  the  former  geograph- 
ical distribution  of  the  species.  The  passage  shows  us  that  in  the  first 
century  A.D.  it  no  longer  existed  in  northern  China,  where  its  habitat 
had  been  prior  to  that  time,  and  that  it  was  then  driven  back  beyond  the 
southern  border,  speaking  roughly,  south  of  the  Yangtse.  It  was  then 
naturalized  in  Yun-nan,  in  the  country  of  the  Ai-lao,2  and  in  Tonking.8 

To  the  author  of  Kiao  chou  ki  we  owe  the  following  interesting  de- 
scription of  the  Annamese  rhinoceros:4  "The  rhinoceros  (si)  has  its 
habitat  in  the  district  of  Kiu-td  (in  Tonking).  It  has  hair  like  swine, 
three  toes,  and  a  head  like  a  horse.  It  is  provided  with  two  horns, — 
the  horn  on  the  nose  being  long,  the  horn  on  the  forehead  short."  It  is 
clearly  manifest  that  this  description  comes  from  an  eye-witness,  or 
one  well  informed  by  the  native  hunters,  and  that  it  perfectly  fits  the 
two-horned  so-called  Sumatran  rhinoceros  (Rhinoceros  sumatrensis) , 
the  only  living  Asiatic  species  with  two  horns,  and  also  the  most  hairy 
one.5  Its  essential  characteristics  are  well  observed  and  briefly  set 
forth  in  this  definition. 

The  dictionary  Erh  ya,  edited  by  Kuo  P'o  (276-3  24) ,  defines  the  animal 
se  as  resembling  the  ox,  and  the  animal  si  as  resembling  swine.  The 
commentary  by  Kuo  P'o  explains  that  the  se  has  a  single  horn,  is  dark 
in  color,  and  weighs  a  thousand  catties;6  and  "the  si  resembles  in  form 


1  MARCO  POLO  (edition  of  YULE  and  CORDIER,  Vol.  II,  p.  285)  says  regarding 
the  rhinoceros  of  Java  that  its  head  resembles  that  of  a  boar. 

*  Hou  Han  shu,  Ch.  116,  p.  8  b. 

1  The  question  of  the  former  geographical  distribution  of  the  rhinoceros  in  China 
is  studied  in  detail  below,  pp.  159-166. 

4  Yen  kien  lei  han,  Ch.  340,  p.  I.  In  Annamese  the  rhinoceros  is  called  hui 
(written  with  the  Chinese  character  for  se)  and  tdy  or  t&  (written  with  the  character 
for  si). 

8  Hair  grows  sparsely  all  over  the  head  and  body,  but  attains  its  maximum  de- 
velopment on  the  ears  and  the  tail,  its  color  varying  from  brown  to  black.  The  long- 
est known  specimen  of  the  front  horn  is  in  the  British  Museum,  and  has  a  length  of 
32  >£  inches,  with  a  basal  girth  of  ij^i  inches;  a  second  specimen  in  the  same  collec- 
tion measures  27^5  inches  in  length,  and  17^  in  circumference  (R.  LYDEKKER,  The 
Game  Animals  of  India,  p.  38).  The  statement  of  the  Kiao  chou  ki  that  the  horn  is 
two  or  three  feet  long  is  therefore  no  exaggeration.  Concerning  the  two  horns  in  the 
si,  there  is  consensus  of  opinion  between  that  work  and  the  Shuo  wen. 

*  This  may  not  be  an  exaggeration,  though  merely  based  on  a  rough  estimate. 
The  average  weight  of  the  rhinoceros,  for  reasons  easy  to  comprehend,  has  never  been 
ascertained.    But  if  the  weight  of  the  skin  alone  may  come  to  three  hundred  pounds 
(E.  HELLER,  The  White  Rhinoceros,  p.  10),  the  complete  animal  may  easily  total  a 
thousand  and  more.    K'ang-hi  and  the  modern  editions  of  the  Erh  ya  write  ' '  thousand 


94  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

the  water-buffalo,1  but  has  the  head  of  a  pig,  a  big  paunch,  short  legs, 
and  three  toes  on  its  feet;  it  is  black  in  color  and  has  three  horns,  one  on 
the  head,  another  on  the  forehead,  and  the  third  on  the  nose.  The  horn 
on  the  nose  is  the  one  by  means  of  which  it  feeds  [that  is,  uproots  shrubs 
and  trees];2  it  is  small  and  not  long;  it  likes  to  eat  thorny  brambles; 
there  is  also  a  kind  with  but  a  single  horn."  Kuo  P'o,  accordingly, 
is  fully  acquainted  with  the  single-horned  rhinoceros  (his  three-horned 
species  is  discussed  farther  on) ,  and  renders  it  plain  enough  that  in  his 
opinion  neither  the  se  nor  the  si  is  a  bovine  animal,  as  he  treats  them  in  a 
different  section;  while  in  his  section  on  bovines,  with  twelve  illustrations 
of  such,  no  hint  is  made  at  se  or  si?  The  last  doubt  which  might  still 
exist  as  to  the  acquaintance  with  the  single-horned  rhinoceros  on  the 
part  of  Kuo  P'o  and  Hu  She*n,  the  author  of  Shuo  w2n,  will  be  banished 
by  another  word,  tuan*  (or  kio  tuan),  of  which  Shuo  wtn  (Ch.  n,  p.  2) 
says  that  it  is  an  animal  of  the  shape  of  swine,  with  a  horn  which  is 
good  for  making  bows,  and  which  is  produced  in  the  country  Hu-siu.B 


catties."  Yen  kien  lei  Han  (I.  c.)  has  the  erroneous  reading  "ten,"  which  is  impossible. 
Also  Chang  Yu-si,  the  author  of  the  Pu  chu  ptn  ts'ao  of  the  year  1057,  as  may  be  seen 
from  the  Cheng  lei  ptn  ts'ao,  quotes  the  Erh  ya  as  saying  that  "the  se  resembles  an 
ox  and  has  a  single  horn."  Kuo  P'o,  accordingly,  concurs  with  Liu  Hin-k'i  in  the 
view  that  se  is  the  single-horned  rhinoceros. 

1  Yen  kien  lei  han  (Ch.  430,  p.  i)  offers  the  variant,  "The  si  resembles  swine,  but 
is  in  shape  like  an  ox;"  then  the  same  text  as  above  is  given,  but  the  clause  in  regard 
to  the  three  horns  is  wanting. 

2  While  feeding,  the  point  of  the  horn  of  the  animal  may  come  in  contact  with  the 
ground,  so  that  the  point  is  sometimes  worn  flat  on  its  outer  face  (E.  HELLER,  The 
White  Rhinoceros,  p.  31).    According  to  Ibn  al-Faqlh,  the  African  rhinoceros  tears 
herbage  out  with  the  anterior  horn,  and  kills  the  lion  with  the  posterior  one  (E. 
WIEDEMANN,  Zur  Mineralogie  im  Islam,  p.  250). 

s  The  rhinoceros  is  incidentally  mentioned  in  another  passage  of  Erh  ya  (Ch.  B, 
fol.  29),  where  nine  mountains  with  their  famed  productions  are  enumerated:  "The 
finest  productions  of  the  southern  region  are  the  rhinoceros  (si)  and  elephant  of  Mount 
Liang"  (Liang  shan,  in  Chung  chou,  Sze-ch'uan;  PLAYFAIR,  2d  ed.,  No.  3790,  2; 
BRETSCHNEIDER,  Bot.  Sin.,  pt.  3,  p.  575,  No.  187).  Kuo  P'o  adds,  "The  rhinoceros 
furnishes  hide  and  horn,  the  elephant  ivory  and  bones."  It  follows  therefrom,  as 
is  also  confirmed  by  other  sources,  that  in  the  third  century  A.  D.,  the  lifetime  of 
Kuo  P'o,  the  rhinoceros  still  existed  in  Sze-ch'uan,  as  seen  above;  its  existence  was 
attested  there  by  Se-ma  Ts'ien  several  centuries  earlier. 

4  Composed  of  the  classifier  kio  ('horn')  and  the  phonetic  element  tuan  (No. 
12,136).  Not  in  GILES;  see  PALLADIUS,  Vol.  I,  p.  189.  A  unicorn  is  represented  on 
the  Han  bas-reliefs  (CHAVANNES,  Mission  archlologique,  Vol.  I,  p.  60,  Paris,  1913). 

6  Nos.  4930  and  4651.  Other  editions  write  Hu-lin.  A  horn  bow  is  not  a  bow 
exclusively  made  from  horn,  which  is  technically  impossible;  but  horn  is  only  one  of 
the  substances  entering  into  its  manufacture.  Technically  the  Chinese  bow  belongs 
to  the  class  of  composite  bows,  the  production  of  which  is  a  complicated  process  and 
requires  a  large  amount  of  toil  and  dexterity.  The  foundation  of  the  bow  is  formed 
of  flexible  wood  connected  with  a  bamboo  staff.  Along  the  back  a  thick  layer  of 
carefully  soaked  and  prepared  animal  sinew  is  pressed,  which,  after  drying,  stiffens 
into  a  hard  elastic  substance.  The  inner  side  of  the  bow  is  then  covered  with  two 
long  horn  sticks  joining  each  other  in  the  centre.  The  opposite  of  the  horn  bow  is  the 
wooden  (or  simple)  bow  (mu  kung),  as  it  is  mentioned,  for  instance,  as  being  used  by 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  95 

Kuo  P'o  states  in  regard  to  the  same  animal,  "The  horn  is  on  the 
nose  and  capable  of  being  made  into  bows.  Li  Ling  presented  ten  such 
bows  to  Su  Wu.1  The  animal  mentioned  in  the  Life  of  Se-ma  Siang-ju 
in  the  Shi  ki  (Ch.  117)  is  the  k'i-lin2  kio  tuan." 

The  animal  with  a  horn  on  its  nose  is  the  single-horned  rhinoceros; 
and  the  term  tuan  or  kio  tuan  is  a  counterpart  of  the  word  monoceros  of 
the  ancients,  as  alluded  to  by  Ctesias,  Aristotle,  Pliny,  Aelian,  and  others, 
and  which,  according  to  the  general  consensus  of  opinion,  relates  to  the 
one-horned  rhinoceros  of  India.  Bows  manufactured  from  the  horn  are 
mentioned  also  in  the  Annals  of  the  Kin  Dynasty.8  The  allusion  to 
armor  by  King  Ping  is  additional  proof  for  se  being  a  rhinoceros,  for, 
as  we  shall  see,  armor  was  not  made  in  ancient  China  from  the  hides  of 
bovine  animals.4 

It  is  beyond  any  doubt  that  in  those  various  definitions  there  is 
plainly  the  question  of  a  rhinoceros.  We  cannot  get  over  the  single 
horn,  whether  placed  on  the  nose,  the  head,  or  the  forehead;6  we  can- 
not get  over  the  fact,  either,  that  a  conspicuous  distinction  between  the 
single-horned  (se)  and  two-horned  (si)  species  is  made,  —  a  fact  which  will 
be  discussed  in  full  farther  on  when  we  have  learned  everything  that 
Chinese  authors  have  to  report  anent  the  two  animals;  nor  can  we  get 
over  the  three  toes  which  form  a  prominent  characteristic  of  the  rhi- 
noceros,6 but  assuredly  not  of  any  bovine  species.  In  fact,  the  Chinese 
definitions,  without  pretension  to  scientific  accuracy,  which  could  not  be 

the  populace  of  Tonking  (Ts'ien  Han  shu,  Ch.  28  B,  p.  17),  which  in  connection  with 
it  availed  itself  of  flint,  bamboo,  and  sometimes  bone  arrowheads. 

1  See  GILES,  Biographical  Dictionary,  pp.  450,  684. 

1  Regarding  the  k'i-lin  see  below,  p.  113. 

3  Kin  shi,  Ch.  120,  p.  3.    Fossil  rhinoceros-horn  (from  Rhinoceros  tichorrhinus) 
is  still  employed  by  the  Yakut  in  the  manufacture  of  bows  (B.  ADLER,  Int.  Archiv 
fur  Ethnographic,  Vol.  XIV,  1901,  p.  il). 

4  Regarding  other  Chinese  notions  of  monoceroses  see  p.  1 14.  Of  later  descriptions 
of  the  rhinoceros,  the  one  contained  in  Ying  yai  sh&ng  Ian  of  1416  by  Ma  Kuan  is  the 
most  interesting.     It  is  the  most  concise  and  correct  definition  ever  given  of  the 
animal  outside  of  our  modern  zoology.    "The  products  of  Champa  are  rhinoceros- 
horn  and  ivory  of  which  there  is  a  large  quantity.    The  rhinoceros  is  like  the  water- 
buffalo.    Animals  of  full  growth  weigh  eight  hundred  catties.    The  body  is  hairless, 
black  in  color,  and  covered  by  a  thick  skin  in  the  manner  of  a  scale  armor.    The  hoofs 
are  provided  with  three  toes.    A  single  horn  is  placed  on  the  extremity  of  the  nose, 
the  longest  reaching  almost  fifteen  inches.    It  subsists  only  on  brambles,  tree  leaves 
and  branches,  and  dried  wood." 

'  As  already  remarked  by  CUVIER,  the  only  real  animal  with  a  single  horn  is  the 
rhinoceros. 

•  This  statement  reflects  much  credit  on  the  observational  power  of  the  Chinese, 
especially  as  it  is  not  pointed  out  by  any  classical  author  in  describing  the  rhinoceros 
or  unicorn.  Al-Berttnl  (SACHAU,  Alberuni's  India,  Vol.  I,  p.  203)  is  the  only  early 
author  outside  of  China  to  make  the  same  observation.  Al-BerunI  gives  two  different 
and  contradictory  descriptions  of  the  rhinoceros,  apparently  emanating  from  two 
different  sources.  First,  the  animal  is  sensibly  described  from  personal  observation 


96  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

expected,  are  perfectly  sound  and  to  the  point  in  stating  what  a  primitive 
observer  could  testify  in  regard  to  an  animal  so  difficult  of  access  and  so 
difficult  to  describe.  Surely,  the  Chinese  definitions  are  not  worse,  and 
in  several  points  perhaps  better,  than  anything  said  about  the  animal  in 
classical  antiquity,  among  the  Arabs,  or  in  Europe  up  to  the  eighteenth 
century.  And  we  shall  soon  recognize  that  until  the  very  recent  dawn 
of  our  scientific  era  the  Chinese  were  the  nation  of  the  world  which 
was  best  informed  on  the  subject.1  The  Chinese  likened  the  rhinoceros 
to  the  ox,  the  water-buffalo,  the  pig,2  and  its  head  to  that  of  an  ape. 

as  follows:  "The  gan<}a  exists  in  large  numbers  in  India,  more  particularly  about  the 
Ganges.  It  is  of  the  build  of  the  buffalo  [analogous  to  the  Chinese  definition],  has  a 
black  scaly  skin,  and  dewlaps  hanging  down  under  the  chin.  It  has  three  yellow 
hoofs  on  each  foot,  the  biggest  one  forward,  the  others  on  both  sides.  The  tail  is  not 
long ;  the  eyes  lie  low,  farther  down  the  cheek  than  is  the  case  with  all  other  animals. 
On  the  top  of  the  nose  there  is  a  single  horn  which  is  bent  upwards.  The  Brahmins 
have  the  privilege  of  eating  the  flesh  of  the  ganda.  I  have  myself  witnessed  how  an 
elephant  coming  across  a  young  ganda  was  attacked  by  it.  The  ganda  wounded  with 
its  horn  a  forefoot  of  the  elephant,  and  threw  it  down  on  its  face."  The  other  account 
of  al-Berunl,  which  refers  to  the  double-horned  African  species,  is  composed  of  the 
narrative  of  a  man  who  had  visited  Sufala  in  Africa,  and  of  classical  reminiscences 
freely  intermingled  with  it;  to  the  latter  belong  the  beliefs  in  the  mobility  of  the 
horn  and  in  the  sharpening  of  the  horn  against  rocks,  and  here  appears  also  the  wrong 
notion  that  it  has  hoofs.  —  PLINY  (Nat.  hist.,  vm,  21,  §76)  asserts  that  the  single- 
horned  oxen  of  India  have  solid  hoofs  (in  India  et  boves  solidis  ungulis  unicornes), 
a  tradition  which  savors  of  the  description  of  a  unicorn  after  a  sculpture  (on  the  As- 
syrian obelisk  the  animal  has  bovine  hoofs).  Even  ARISTOTLE  (Hist,  an.,  n,  18; 
ed.  of  AUBERT  and  WIMMER,  Vol.  I,  pp.  74,  254),  who  evidently  speaks  after  Ctesias, 
characterizes  the  single-horned  "Indian  ass"  as  solid-hoofed  (/xcbpuxa).  This  lacune 
in  the  descriptions  of  the  ancients  was  aptly  pointed  out  by  BELIN  DE  BALLU  (La 
chasse,  poeme  d'Oppien,  p.  174,  Strasbourg,  1787),  who,  in  speaking  of  the  familiarity 
of  the  ancients  with  the  animal,  concludes  by  saying,  "Mais  ce  qui  doit  nous  6tonner 
c'est  qu'  aucun  n'ait  parle"  d'un  caractere  particulier  de  cet  animal,  dont  les  pieds  sont 
partage"s  en  trois  parties,  revenue  chacune  d'une  sole  semblable  a  celle  du  bceuf." 

1  The  only  reproach  that  can  be  made  to  the  Chinese  authors  is  that  they  never 
point  to  the  peculiar  skin-folds  of  the  animal  (with  the  only  exception,  perhaps,  of 
Fan  Ch6n  of  the  Sung  period,  who  describes  the  rhinoceros  of  Annam  as  "clad  with 
a  fleshy  armor;"  see  p.  113),  and  that,  despite  the  live  specimens  procured  for  the 
Imperial  Court  (p.  80),  no  attempt  has  ever  been  made  at  a  more  precise  description 
based  on  actual  observation.    But  we  may  address  the  same  charge  of  omission  to 
the  authors  of  India,  the  Greek  writers  on  India,  and  to  Pliny  and  Aelian.    PLINY  is 
content  with  stating  that  he  saw  the  animal  in  the  Roman  circus,  but  does  not  de- 
scribe what  he  saw,  while  he  is  eager  to  reproduce  all  the  fables  regarding  the  monoce- 
ros,  emanating  from  India  or  from  former  sources  relative  to  India.    AELIAN  (Nat. 
an.,  xvn,  44)  thinks  it  superfluous  to  describe  the  form  of  the  rhinoceros,  since  a 
great  many  Greeks  and  Romans  have  seen  and  clearly  know  it.    In  matters  of  descrip- 
tion the  animal  presents  as  difficult  a  subject  as  in  matters  of  art.    Exact  descriptions 
of  it  are  due  only  to  competent  zoologists  of  recent  times. 

2  How  very  natural  this  comparison  is,  maybe  gleaned  from  the  account  contained 
in  Nan  Ytie  chi  (quoted  in  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'Bng,  chapter  on  rhinoceros),  that  at  the  time 
of  the  Han  a  rhinoceros  once  stampeded  from  Kiao  chi  (Annam)  into  Kao-liang  (the 
ancient  name  for  Kao-chou  fu  in  Kuang-tung  Province),  and  that  it  was  mistaken  by 
the  people  for  a  black  ox,  while  those  acquainted  with  the  animal  asserted  that  it 
was  a  black  rhinoceros.    The  resemblance  of  the  rhinoceros  to  an  ox  or  buffalo  has 
indeed  obtruded  itself  on  the  observers  of  all  times;  and  this  notion  is  so  far  from  being 
restricted  to  the  Chinese,  that  it  may  almost  be  called  universal.    As  seen  above 
(p.  87),  the  Assyrians  called  the  animal  "ox  of  the  river  Sakeya."    PLINY  (Nat.  hist., 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  97 

This  is  all  exceedingly  good:  it  is  simply  the  result  of  that  mental 
process  which  classifies  a  novel  experience  under  a  well-known  category, 

vin,  21,  §72,  76)  speaks  of  the  unicorn  oxen  of  India.  FESTUS  calls  the  African 
rhinoceros  the  Egyptian  ox,  and  PAUSANIAS  tells  of  "Ethiopic  bulls  styled  rhino- 
ceroses" which  he  saw  himself  in  Rome  (O.  KELLER,  Die  antike  Tierwelt,  Vol.  I, 
P-  385).  The  Indian  physician  Caraka,  who  lived  at  the  Court  of  King  Kanishka  in 
Kashmir,  placed  the  rhinoceros  in  the  class  of  buffalo  (anupa,  Mem.  As.  Soc.  Bengal, 
Vol.  I,  1906,  p.  371).  The  Arabic  merchant  Soleiman,  who  wrote  in  851,  compared 
the  Indian  rhinoceros  with  the  buffalo  (M.  REINAUD,  Relation  des  voyages,  Vol.  I, 
p.  29) ;  and  so  did,  as  seen  above,  al-Berdnl.  Ibn  al-Faqlh  says  regarding  the  African 
rhinoceros  that  it  resembles  a  calf  (E.  WIEDEMANN,  Zur  Mineralogie  im  Islam, 
p.  250).  The  Talmud,  in  three  passages,  mentions  the  one-horned  ox  as  an  animal  sacri- 
ficed by  Adam  (L.  LEWYSOHN,  Die  Zoplogie  des  Talmuds,  p.  151,  Frankfurt,  1858). 
The  "sea-ox"  mentioned  by  Leo  Africanus  (HiRTH  and  ROCKHILL,  Chau  Ju-kua, 
p.  145)  certainly  is  the  rhinoceros.  The  Malays  designate  the  two-horned  species 
badak-karbau,  "the  buffalo-rhinoceros,"  and  the  single-horned  species  badak-gajah, 
"the  elephant-rhinoceros."  It  is  difficult  to  understand,  however,  why  some  of  the 
classical  authors  allude  to  the  rhinoceros  under  the  designation  "the  Indian  ass" 
(ARISTOTLE,  Hist,  an.,  n,  18,  ed.  of  AUBERT  and  WIMMER,  Vol.  I,  pp.  74,  254). 
Aristotle's  definition  is  traceable  to  CTESIAS  (ed.  BAEHR,  p.  254),  who  states  that 
there  were  in  India  wild  white  asses  celebrated  for  their  swiftness  of  foot,  having  on 
the  forehead  a  horn  a  cubit  and  a  half  in  length,  and  that  they  are  colored  white, 
red,  and  black ;  from  the  horn  were  made  drinking-cups  which  were  a  preventive  of 
poisoning  (compare  also  LASSEN,  Indische  Altertumskunde,  Vol.  II,  p.  646).  The 
mention  of  these  antipoisonous  cups  is  good  evidence  for  the  fact  that  Ctesias  hints 
at  the  Indian  rhinoceros  (HERODOTUS,  iv,  191,  speaks  of  horned  asses  of  Libya, 
but  they  are  not  one-horned).  Ctesias  is  an  author  difficult  to  judge.  His  account 
of  India,  said  to  have  been  written  in  B.C.  389,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind,  was  de- 
rived second-hand,  while  he  resided  in  Persia  as  court-physician  of  King  Artaxerxes 
Mnemon,  so  that  his  data  may  partially  be  based  on  Persian  accounts  of  India,  and 
misunderstandings  of  his  informants  may  have  crept  in;  moreover,  his  report  is  handed 
down  in  a  bad  and  fragmentary  condition,  and  may  have  been  disfigured  by  Photias 
of  Byzance  of  the  ninth  century,  to  whom  the  preservation  of  his  work  is  due.  The 
definition  of  Ctesias  in  the  present  case  cannot  be  regarded  as  correct,  as  we  do  not 
find  in  India,  or  anywhere  else  in  the  East,  a  comparison  of  the  rhinoceros  with  an  ass, 
nor  any  tradition  to  this  effect, —  a  tradition  which  is  not  likely  ever  to  have  existed. 
If  the  ass  really  was  contained  in  his  original  text,  it  must  go  back,  in  my  estimation, 
to  a  misunderstanding  on  his  part  of  the  word  imparted  to  him  by  the  authorities 
whom  he  questioned.  With  the  exception  of  the  horn,  Ctesias  does  not  seem  to  have 
entertained  any  clear  notion  of  the  animal;  and  his  description  of  the  skin  as  white, 
red,  and  black,  is  baffling.  V.  BALL  (Proceedings  Royal  Irish  Academy,  Vol.  II,  1885, 
and  in  his  edition  of  Tavernier's  Travels  in  India,  Vol.  I,  p.  114)  tried  to  show  that 
the  colors  seen  by  Ctesias  were  artificial  pigments  applied  to  the  hide,  as  they  are  on 
elephants  at  the  present  day;  rhinoceroses  kept  by  the  Rajas  for  fighting-purposes 
were,  according  to  him,  commonly  painted  with  diverse  bright  colors.  This  forced 
explanation,  shifting  quite  recent  affairs  to  the  days  of  early  antiquity,  is  hardly 
plausible.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  are  bound  to  assume  that  the  text  of  this  passage 
is  not  correctly  handed  down.  The  colors  white,  red,  and  black  would  seem  rather  to 
have  originally  adhered  to  the  horn.  The  Eastern  lore  of  the  rhinoceros,  as  shown  by 
the  reports  of  the  Chinese  and  Arabs,  essentially  clusters  around  the  horn. — 
MARCO  POLO  (ed.  of  YULE  and  CORDIER,  Vol.  II,  p.  285)  says  in  regard  to  the 
Javanese  rhinoceros  that  its  head  resembles  that  of  a  wild  boar;  and  this  characteriza- 
tion is  quite  to  the  point,  as  is  that  of  Kuo  P'o  when  he  compares  the  two-horned  si 
to  swine.  A  glance  at  Fig.  8,  representing  the  specimen  of  a  Sumatran  two-horned 
rhinoceros  in  the  Field  Museum,  will  convince  every  one  of  the  appropriateness  of 
this  simile.  The  pig  shape  of  the  rhinoceros  is  apparent  also  in  a  Roman  representa- 
tion on  a  clay  lamp  from  Labicum  illustrating  the  struggle  between  that  animal  and 
a  bear  (Fig.  7),  so  that  even  the  most  skeptic  critic  of  Chinese  animal  sketches  will  be 
compelled  to  grant  a  certain  foundation  of  fact  to  the  hog-like  rhinoceros  of  the  Erh 
ya  (Fig.  6). 


98 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


<C   O  13 

u  :«j-« 

VI 
I 

i 


2  Of 

A 

60 
.3 
2 

a 


i  JU       •  I        i 

HISTORY 


RHINOCEROS 


99 


and  the  comparisons  cx>uld,n&t  be  anyoetffcf .  We  should  halt  a  moment 
to  reflectf'by  what  class  of  people  these  observations  had  been  made. 
Most  oJ£tainly''by  tJi*  MfSjTm^.. 
hardy  hugrtprs  who  !*hgs^J 
the  wild  b&sfcy  We  must 

AoA^r       >v  ^   , 

distinguish    ^tjetfjeen     tne 

original 

teller,    and    the 

closeted  in  his  study  who 

draughted   the    definitions 

for  the  consumption  of  the 

learned.      It  was  not  the 

Chinese  philologist  who 

went   out  into  the  jungle 

to  study  the  rhinoceros;  he, 

indeed,  never  had  occasion 

to  see  it,  but  he  derived  his  knowledge  from  reports  made  to  him  by  the 

sportsman.    The  latter  probably  was  plain  and  matter-of-fact;  the 


FIG.  7. 

Struggle  of  Bear  and  Rhinoceros,  represented  on  a  Clay 
Lamp  from  Labicum  (after  0.  Keller,  Tiere  des 

classischen  Altertums). 


FIG.  8. 

Sumatran  Rhinoceros.  Sketch  from  Museum  Specimen  (compare  Elliot.  Catalogue  of  the  Collection 
of  Mammals.  Zool.  Series.  Vol.  VIII,  p.  105). 

former  added  a  bit  of  romance  and  exaggeration.  Have  we  any  right  to 
ridicule  the  Chinese  over  their  embarrassment  as  to  where  to  locate  the 
horn  or  the  horns,  when  we  observe  that  this  was  still  a  matter  of  wild 
speculation  amidst  Europe  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries?1 


1  Dr.  PARSONS,  in  the  pamphlet  quoted,  justly  remarks,  "Nothing  could  serve  as 
a  better  proof  of  how  easily  men  may  fall  into  uncertainty  through  preconceived 
conclusions  than  this  very  topic  of  the  horn  of  the  rhinoceros." 


ioo  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

Have  we  any  right  to  look  down  upon  their  artists  in  their  naive  at- 
tempts to  sketch  the  rhinoceros  in  the  shape  of  an  ox  with  a  horn  on  the 
forehead  (Fig.  5),  when  we  observe  that  the  so-called  "civilization"  of 
Assyria  and  the  painting  of  Persia  committed  the  same  error,  or  when  we 
glance  at  the  puerile  drawings  of  Cosmas  and  recall  Durer's  work  with 
the  horn  on  the  animal's  neck? 

In  the  above  definitions  we  recognize  the  elements  and  tools  with 
which  the  subsequent  Chinese  illustrators  worked.  They  set  out  to  il- 
lustrate, not  the  rhinoceros,  but  the  descriptions  given  of  it  in  the 
ancient  dictionaries.  They  studied,  not  the  animal,  but  the  ready- 
made  definitions  of  it  encountered  in  book-knowledge.  They  read, 
and  their  reading  guided  the  strokes  of  their  brush.  "The  se  resembles 
in  body  a  water-buffalo,  the  si  a  pig:"  consequently  such  bodies 
were  outlined  by  the  illustrator  of  Erh  ya;  and  long,  curved,  and  pointed 
single  horns  were  placed  on  the  heads  (Figs.  5  and  6).1  He  apparently 
shunned  the  three  horns,  as  the  matter  was  difficult  to  draw;  and  no- 
body knew  how  to  arrange  them.  He  carefully  outlined  the  three  toes 

1  Our  illustrations  are  derived  from  a  folio  edition  of  the  Erh  ya  printed  in  1801 
(3  vols.),  which  is  designated  as  "a  reproduction  of  the  illustrated  Erh  ya  of  the  Sung 
period"  (Ying  Sung  ch'ao  hut  t'u  Erh  yd).  The  ancient  illustrations  of  the  Erh  ya 
by  Kuo  P'o  and  Kiang  Kuan  are  lost  (see  BRETSCHNEIDER,  Bot.  Sin.,  pt.  i,  p.  34), 
and  were  renewed  in  the  age  of  the  Sung,  presumably  without  any  tradition  connect- 
ing the  latter  with  the  former.  This  fact  may  account  for  the  purely  reconstructive 
work  of  some  illustrations,  and  we  may  well  assume  that  the  earlier  sketches  were  far 
better.  Many  other  illustrations  of  the  Erh  ya  have  been  brought  about  in  the  same 
manner  as  those  of  the  rhinoceros.  Compare,  for  instance,  the  picture  of  the  fabulous 
horse  po  (No.  9393)  surrounded  by  flamed  fluttering  bands  and  about  to  lacerate  a 
tiger  seized  by  its  carnivora-like,  sharp  claws;  while  a  panther  is  swiftly  making  for 
safety  to  escape  a  similar  fate.  Of  course,  the  craftsman  has  never  observed  this 
scene,  but  faithfully  depicts  the  definition  of  the  book,  "The  animal  po  is  like  a  horse 
with  powerful  teeth,  devouring  tigers  and  panthers."  This  notion,  as  indicated  by 
Kuo  P'o,  goes  back  to  the  Shan  hat  king,  which  says,  "There  is  a  wild  animal  styled 
po,  like  a  white  horse  with  black  tail  and  powerful  teeth,  emitting  sounds  like  a 
drum  and  devouring  tigers  and  panthers."  (Here  we  have  a  parallel  to,  and  pre- 
sumably an  echo  of,  the  flesh-eating  horses  of  Diomed  and  the  man-devouring 
Bucephalus  of  the  Alexander  legend;  see  J.  v.  NEGELEIN,  Das  Pferd  im  arischen  Al- 
tertum,  pp.  43,  75,  Konigsberg,  1903.)  Otherwise  the  horses  pictured  in  the  Erh  ya, 
aside  from  their  technical  drawbacks,  are  quite  realistic;  and  so  are  the  oxen  and 
other  animals  which  came  under  the  every-day  observation  of  the  Chinese.  It  is 
still  a  mystery,  and  a  problem  worth  while  investigating,  why  the  Chinese  were  rather 
good  at  drawing  some  animals  and  completely  failed  in  others.  It  may  be  pointed 
out  that  the  tapir  of  the  Erh  ya,  aside  from  the  exaggerated  trunk  and  wrong  tail,  is 
rather  correctly  outlined  with  its  white  saddle,  and  corresponds  to  a  well-known 
species  (Tapirus  indicus).  In  view  of  the  retrospective  and  reconstructive  sketches 
of  this  work,  we  have  the  same  state  of  affairs  as  in  the  illustrations  accompanying 
the  Shan  hat  king,  and  as  formerly  shown  by  me  in  Jade,  in  the  San  li  t'u,  and  to 
a  certain  extent  in  the  Ku  yu  t'u  p'u.  The  illustrators  of  the  ancient  Rituals  did 
not  directly  picture  the  actual,  ancient  ceremonial  objects,  most  of  which  were  lost 
past  hope  in  their  time,  but  reconstructed  them  from  the  descriptions  supplied  by 
the  commentators  of  the  ancient  texts,  and  for  better  or  worse,  based  their  illus- 
trations on  these  artificial  reconstructions,  which  to  a  large  extent  are  erroneous  or 
imaginary. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  101 

in  the  animal  si;  and  this  feature,  combined  with  the  single  horns,  is 
sufficient  flavor  of  the  rhinoceros  to  guard  from  any  rash  conclusion 
even  one  who  has  not  considered  the  psychological  foundation  of  these 
sketches. 

From  the  fact  that  the  animal  se  is  drawn  in  the  shape  of  an  ox, 
Mr.  Giles  infers  that  the  word  se  does  not  denote  the  rhinoceros, 
but  "a  bovine  animal."  Then,  how  about  the  word  si?  The  animal 
si  (Fig.  6)  is  undeniably  represented  in  the  Erh  ya  t'u  with  the  body  of  a 
hog, —  why  not,  to  be  consistent,  also  translate  the  word  si  by  "swine"? 
If  a  child  who  was  invited  to  make  a  sketch  of  a  whale  should  delineate 
it  in  the  shape  of  a  fish,  should  we  conclude  for  this  reason  that  the  whale 
is  a  fish?  To  make  use  of  an  illustration  for  a  far-reaching  philological 
and  zoological  conclusion,  it  is  indispensable  to  ascertain  the  real  value 
of  such  an  illustration,  and  to  make  a  somewhat  critical  study  of  its 
origin  and  basis.  Mr.  Giles  is  right  in  stating  that  there  are  illustra- 
tions of  the  animal  se  that  are  purely  those  of  an  ox.  The  ill-reputed 
San  li  t'u,  for  instance,  stooped  to  this  wisdom  when  the  difficult  task 
arose  of  illustrating  in  the  shape  of  a  rhinoceros  the  target  used  by  the 
lords  and  ministers  in  the  practice  of  archery,  and  spoken  of  in  the 
Chou  li  and  /  /*.  But  what  wonder !  Those  illustrators  who  employed 
the  pure-ox  design  simply  stood  on  the  platform  of  the  sober  and  incom- 
plete definition  of  the  Shuo  wen,  "The  animal  se  is  like  a  wild  ox." 
Nothing  could  be  more  convenient  to  the  unthinking  and  mechanical 
craftsman;  this  plain  recipe  freed  him  from  the  responsibility  for  the 
horn.  Anybody  could  outline  an  ox  with  two  regular  horns;  and  by 
inscribing  it  se,  the  satisfaction  at  this  achievement  was  naturally  the 
greater. 

It  is  incorrect,  however,  to  say  that  the  animal  se,  as  outlined  in  T'u 
shu  tsi  ch'eng  (Fig.  9),  is  the  picture  of  an  ox.  In  its  general  features  it 
resembles  a  kind  of  deer,  as  does  likewise  the  animal  si  (Fig.  10).  A 
lengthy  discussion  of  the  "deer-like"  rhinoceros  follows  below  (p.  109). 
Again,  in  Fig.  9,  the  draughtsman  has  taken  particular  pains  to  set  off 
distinctly  *hree  toes  in  the  left  front  foot;  and  where  is  the  bovine 
animal  with  three  toes?  And  where  is  the  bovine  animal  with  a  single 
horn,  and  with  this  peculiar  shape  of  horn?  As  to  Fig.  10,  it  presents 
itself  as  an  illustration  of  the  legend  that,  while  the  rhinoceros  is  gazing 
at  the  moon,  the  peculiar  designs  within  its  horn  are  formed  (p.  147). 
This  notion  exclusively  refers  to  rhinoceros-horn,  so  that  the  animal  here 
intended  can  be  no  other  than  the  rhinoceros.1 


1  The  two  illustrations  of  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'ing  are  derived,  with  a  few  slight  altera- 
tions, from  San  ts'ai  t'u  hui  (section  on  Animals,  Ch.  3,  p.  7;  Ch.  4,  p.  12),  where,  curi- 


102 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


23. 


FIG.  9. 

The  Animal  se  (from  T'u  shit  tsi  ch'eng). 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS 


103 


PIG.  10. 
The  Animal  si  gazing  at  the  Moon  (from  7"*  MM  tti  ek'tog). 


104  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

The  three-horned  rhinoceros  described  by  Kuo  P'o  is  perhaps  not  so 
fabulous  as  it  may  appear  at  first  sight;  for  it  is  known  to  naturalists 
that  the  animal  has  also  the  tendency  of  developing  three  horns.  E. 
HELLER1  states  in  regard  to  the  black  rhinoceros  covering  the  whole  of 
Africa  with  the  exception  of  the  Congo  Basin  that,  although  the  species  is 
almost  invariably  two-horned,  occasional  variations  of  one  and  three- 
horned  specimens  are  met  with.  In  the  light  of  this  observation, 
PLINY'S  (Nat.  hist.,  VIII,  21)  notice  of  oxen  of  India,  some  with  one 
horn,  and  others  with  three  (Indices  boves  unicornes  tricornesque) ,  is 
apt  to  lose  much  of  the  legendary  character  with  which  it  was  formerly 
charged.  As  far  as  I  know,  a  three-horned  specimen  has  not  yet  been 
pointed  out  among  the  species  of  the  Indo-Malayan  region;  notwith- 
standing, the  possibility  remains  that  such  may  have  occurred  in 
times  of  antiquity.  However  this  may  be,  whether  we  assume  that  the 
notion  of  a  three-horned  species  was  founded  on  a  natural  observation 
or  not,  the  fact  of  the  coincidence  between  Kuo  P'o  and  Pliny  remains, 
and  hints  at  the  existence  of  a  tradition  anent  a  three-horned  variety  in 
the  beginning  of  our  era.2  At  any  rate,  whether  real  or  imaginary,  the 
latter  is  but  a  variation  of  the  two-horned  species;  and  by  omitting 
Kuo  P'o's  illusory  "horn  on  the  head,"  we  arrive  at  a  fairly  accurate 
description  of  it,  and  then  Kuo  P'o  exactly  agrees  with  Hii  Shen's 
definition  of  the  word  si.  And  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  point  that 


ously  enough,  they  are  separated  and  dispersed  in  two  different  chapters.  In  the  latter 
work,  the  horn  of  the  se  is  decorated  with  different  designs,  which  are  white  on  black, 
while  they  are  black  on  white  in  T'u  shu.  The  si  of  San  ts*ai  is  adorned  with  flamed 
and  fluttering  bands,  and  the  crescent  of  the  moon  is  absent. 

1  The  White  Rhinoceros,  p.  35  (Washington,  1913).    Again  on  p.  17:  "The  num- 
ber of  dermal  horns  on  the  snout  is  of  less  importance.    These  have  been  found  to 
show  some  individual  variation  in  the  African  species  varying  from  one  to  three  in 
number  in  the  same  species.    The  front  horn,  however,  is  nearly  always  the  better 
developed  and  is  never  wanting." 

2  The  case  could  certainly  be  argued  also  from  a  purely  philological  point  of  view. 
Kuo  P'o's  creation  might  be  explained  as  an  ill-advised  combination  of  the  single- 
horned  and  two-horned  species,  or  even  regarded  as  a  subsequent  interpolation  in 
his  text,  due  to  a  scribe  who  meant  to  be  sure  of  his  definition  being  as  complete  as 
possible.    Pliny's  tricornis  might  be  rationally  interpreted  as  the  result  of  an  arithmet- 
ical process,  providing  the  rhinoceros  as  a  species  of  ox  with  two  bovine  horns,  and 
adding  the  nose-horn  as  the  third.    In  this  manner  Damlrl's  three-horned  rhinoceros 
must  have  arisen  (RusKA,  Der  Islam,  Vol.  IV,  1913,  p.  164),  for  it  has  one  horn 
between  the  eyes  and  two  above  the  ears.    The  natural  explanation  based  on  zoologi- 
cal observation  appeals  to  me  to  a  much  higher  degree,  for  we  must  not  be  forgetful 
of  the  fact  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  human  mind  to  invent  spontaneously  such  an 
observation;  a  feature  of  this  kind,  in  order  to  be  observed  by  man,  must  have  some- 
how pre-existed  in  nature.  It  means  nothing,  of  course,  to  say  that  the  three  horns  are 
a  fable;  if  fable  it  is,  then  how  did  the  fable  come  into  existence?    It  is  not  the 
question  of  a  mythological  conception,  or  of  a  mythical  monster,  but  plainly  of  a 
really  existing  animal  described  in  sober  words.    I  feel  confident  that  the  three-horned 
variation  in  a  living  or  extinct  species  will  be  found  some  day  also  in  Eastern  Asia. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  105 

what  Kuo  P'o  intends  to  describe  is  the  two-horned  species  of  rhinoceros, 
not  any  other  animal:  his  statement  in  regard  to  "the  horn  on  the 
nose"  excludes  any  other  idea,  and  the  bovine  animal  with  such  a  horn 
remains  as  yet  to  be  discovered.  Li  Shi-che'n  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
as  will  be  seen  below  (p.  150),  rejects  the  definition  of  Kuo  P'o  as  erro- 
neous; that  is  to  say,  he  did  not  know  of  any  three-horned  variety,  and 
recognized  in  it  the  two-horned  species.  An  illustration  of  this  three- 
horned  creature  may  be  viewed  in  the  Wa-Kan  San-sai-zu-e ,  the  Japa- 
nese edition  of  the  Chinese  cyclopaedia  5an  ts'ai  t'u  hut.1  The  defini- 
tion runs  thus:  "The  rhinoceros  has  the  hair  of  swine  and  three  toes  on 
each  foot;  it  has  the  head  of  a  horse  and  three  horns,  on  the  nose,  the 
forehead,  and  on  the  skull,  respectively."  The  three  toes  and  three 
horns  are  exactly  drawn  in  accordance  with  this  prescription;  curiously 
enough,  however,  the  head  is  not  that  of  a  horse,  but  of  a  bull.  The 
old  tradition  of  the  draughtsmen  is  retained  in  spite  of  the  definition. 

Kuo  P'o,  in  all  probability,  is  not  the  first  or  the  only  author  to 
speak  of  a  three-horned  variety.  A  work  Kiao  Kuang  chi,2  Account  of 
Kiao  chou  (northern  part  of  what  is  now  Annam)  and  Kuang-tung, 
reports,  "In  the  territory  of  the  Barbarians  of  the  South-west  occurs  a 
strange  rhinoceros  with  three  horns  emitting  light  at  night  like  big 
torches  at  a  distance  of  a  thousand  paces.  When  it  sheds  its  horns,  it 
hides  them  in  a  remote  and  dense  jungle  to  prevent  men  from  seeing 
them.  The  sovereigns  hold  this  strange  product  in  high  esteem,  and 
make  it  into  hair-pins.  These  are  capable  of  checking  evil  and  rebel- 
lion." Here  we  have  the  testimony  of  an  eye-witness  or  one  reproducing 
a  hearsay  account;  and,  quite  correctly,  he  points  out  this  variety  as  a 
freak  of  nature.  The  exact  date  of  the  work  in  question  is  unfortunately 
not  known  to  me;  but  as  the  quotation  is  placed  between  one  from 
Kuang-chi  by  Ku  Yi-kung,  who  according  to  BRETSCHNEIDER*  belonged 
to  the  Liang  dynasty  (502— 556),  and  one  from  Kuang  chou  ki,  a  work  of 
the  Tsin  period  (265—419),  the  inference  may  be  justifiable  that  Kiao 
Kuang  chi  likewise  is  a  production  of  the  Leu-ch'ao  period.  However 
remote  from  truth  all  these  Chinese  illustrations  may  be,  most  of  them 
are  fairly  correct  as  to  the  outlines  of  the  horn,  naturally  because 

1  The  illustration  is  easily  accessible  in  L.  SERRURIER,  Encyclop&iie  jappnaise, 
le  chapitre  des  quadrupedes,  Plate  VIII  (Leiden,  1875).  This  cut  is  not  contained  in 
a  recent  edition  of  this  Japanese  work  (Tokyo,  1906),  but  is  replaced  by  a  rhinoceros 
with  two  horns,  the  one  on  the  forehead,  the  other  on  top  of  the  skull.  These  attempts 
clearly  prove  that  Japanese  as  well  as  Chinese  illustrators  did  not  draw  the  animal 
from  life,  but  from  the  definitions  of  the  books.  In  the  Chinese  San  ts'ai  t'u  hut 
(Ch.  4,  p.  32)  only  a  three-horned  animal  (san  kio  shou)  is  depicted. 

1  Quoted  in  the  chapter  on  Rhinoceros  in  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'tng. 

1  Bot.  Sin.,  pt.  I,  p.  164. 


io6  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

the  horn  as  an  article  of  trade  was  always  known,  but  not  the  animal 
itself.1 

The  r61e  played  by  the  rhinoceros  in  Chinese  art  is  limited.  As 
shown  by  the  symbol  illustrated  in  the  Po  ku  t'u  lu  (Fig.  18),  it  was 
pictured  in  early  antiquity;  and  other  representations  of  that  period 
mentioned  in  Chinese  records  are  discussed  on  p.  160.  The  animal  lacks 
those  aesthetic  qualities  of  form  which  tempt  the  brush  of  the  painter; 
and  this  may  be  the  reason  why  despite  the  living  rhinoceroses  sent  up  as 
tribute  to  the  capital  (see  p.  80)  it  has  never  been  immortalized  on  any 
Chinese  scroll  known  to  us.2  There  is,  however,  one  case  on  record. 
Chang  Shi-nan,  who  wrote  the  book  Yu  hitan  ki  wtn  early  in  the  thir- 
teenth century,3  narrates  that  he  once  saw  in  Sze-ch'uan  (Shu)  the 
painting  of  an  unknown  artist  showing  the  outlines  of  a  rhinoceros  with 
a  horn  on  its  nose.4  The  inhabitants  of  Sze-ch'uan,  accordingly,  were 
familiar  with  the  animal,  and  for  this  reason  represented  it  correctly. 
On  some  Buddhist  pictures  it  may  owe  its  existence  to  a  mere  lucky 
chance;  that  is,  to  the  fact  that  it  was  so  copied  from  an  Indian- 
Buddhist  model.  On  Yen  Li-p£n's  picture  showing  Samantabhadra's 
elephant,8  the  rhinoceros  is  unmistakably  contrasted  with  the  elephant 
as  the  smaller  animal  with  scaly  body,  and  head  surmounted  by  a  single 
horn.  Another  illustration  of  the  same  subject  is  reproduced  in  Fig.  n 
from  Ch'tng  shi  mo  yuan  (Ch.  6  B,  p.  16)  published  in  the  Wan- 
li  period,  after  1605.  Possibly  it  occurs  also  on  the  later  typical  paint- 
ings of  Buddha's  Nirvana  in  the  group  of  wailing  animals.6  On  the 
sculptures  of  Angkor- Vat  the  rhinoceros  is  represented  as  the  vehicle  of 
the  god  Karttikeya.7 

The  Mongol  emperors  made  practical  use  of  the  typical,  conventional 
designs  of  the  rhinoceros  on  the  standards  of  the  army:  there  was  a 
standard  with  the  picture  of  the  animal  se,  "resembling  an  ox,  with  a 
single  horn,  and  of  dark  color,"  and  another  with  a  picture  of  the 

1  A  modern  Chinese  school-book  published  at  Shanghai  in  1901,  and  illustrated  by 
Wu  Tse-ch'Sng  of  Su-chou,  illustrates  the  word  si  with  the  cut  of  a  rhinoceros  of 
European  origin,  and  the  word  se  with  a  jovial  ox  of  his  own  invention;  while  the  text 
accompanying  it,  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  the  Shuo  wSn  and  Erh  ya,  speaks  of  one 
horn  on  the  nose  and  three  toes. 

1  It  is  likewise  absent  from  classical  Greek  art.  The  marble  relief  of  Pompeii, 
the  lamp  from  Labicum,  and  the  coins  of  Domitian  referred  to,  are  the  only  known  ex- 
amples of  its  representation  in  late  Roman  art. 

1  WYLIE,  Notes,  p.  165. 

4  The  text  is  reprinted  in  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'ing,  chapter  on  rhinoceros,  hui  k'ao,  p.  5. 

8  Reproduced  in  the  writer's  Jade,  p.  342. 

•  See  for  example  A.  GRUNWEDEL,  Buddhistische  Kunst  in  Indien,  p.  1 14,  or  Bud- 
dhist Art  in  India,  p.  124  (in  the  right  lower  corner). 

7  According  to  M.  G.  CoEofes,  Les  bas-reliefs  d'Angkor-Vat,  p.  12  (Paris,  1911). 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS 


107 


FIG.  11. 

'Brushing  the  Elephant."     Rhinoceros  with  Scaly  Armor  in  Front.     Wood-engraving  from 

Ch'tng-shi  mo  yiian. 


io8 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


rhinoceros  si  niu,  which  is  not  described.  They  had  also  standards 
with  designs  of  a  three-horned  animal  (san  kio  shou)  and  the  unicorn 
(kio  tuan),  which  was  outlined  "like  a  sheep,  with  a  small  tail  and  a 
single  horn  on  its  crest." * 

In  plastic  art,2  the  rhinoceros  has  been  carved  from  jade  either  as 
the  handle  of  a  paper-weight  or  as  the  knob  of  a  seal.3  An  example  of 
either  kind  is  illustrated  in  Ku  yti  t'u  p'u  (Ch.  74,  p.  i,  reproduced  in 


FIG.  12. 
Ancient  Paper- Weight  of  Jade  surmounted  by  Figure  of  Rhinoceros  (from  Ku  y&  t'u  p'n). 

Fig.  12;  and  Ch.  37,  p.  n).  The  traditional  reconstructions  of  the 
animal  are  here  faithfully  preserved;  the  three  toes  (the  third,  of  course, 
is  not  visible)  and  the  shape  of  the  horn,  though  it  is  wrongly  placed, 
come  somewhat  near  the  truth.  The  manufacturers  of  ink-cakes 
availed  themselves  of  the  same  design  for  printing  on  the  surface  of 
their  products.  The  Ch'Gng  shi  mo  yiian  (Ch.  13,  p.  30)  illustrates 
"a  spiritual  rhinoceros"  (ling  si)  with  body  of  an  ox,  hump  of  a  zebu, 
cloven  feet,  snout  of  a  pig,  and  horn  on  the  front. 

1  Yiian  shi,  Ch.  79,  p.  10  (K'ien-lung  edition). 

2  BUSHELL  (Chinese  Art,  Vol.  I,  p.  91)  figures  a  bronze  vessel  of  the  type  styled 
hi  ts'un,  and  describes  it  as  being  "shaped  in  the  form  of  a  rhinoceros  standing  with 
ears  erect  and  a  collar  round  the  neck.      But  this  explanation  conflicts  with  Chinese 
tradition,  according  to  which  the  animal  hi  is  a  sacrificial  ox;  and  an  ox  is  apparently 
represented  in  this  bronze.    Neither  is  there  a  single  or  double  horn,  which  would  be 
necessary  to  establish  such  a  case. 

8  Seals  surmounted  by  the  full  figure  of  a  rhinoceros  seem  to  make  their  first 
appearance  in  the  Han  period  (see  Hou  Han  shu,  Ch.  40,  p.  5). 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS 


109 


The  most  curious  item  in  the  history  of  the  iconography  of  the 
rhinoceros  is  the  illustration  of  the  animal  in  the  Chdng  lei  p$n  ts'ao 
published  in  1208  by  the  physician  T'ang  Sh&i-wei1  (reproduced  in 
Fig.  13).  Here  we  see  the  animal  represented  as  a  hairy  and  spotted 
deer,  its  head  being  surmounted  by  a  single  curved  horn,  peacefully 
chewing  a  bunch  of  leaves  with  a  most  innocent  expression  on  its  face. 
The  legend  is  si  kio  ("rhinoceros-horn"),  all  illustrations  of  animals 


FIG.  13. 

Deer  with  Single  Horn,  labelled  Rhinoceros-Horn,  being  an  Echo  of  the  Indian  Legend  of  Ekagririga 
(from  Chtng  lei  pin  ts'ao.  edition  of  1523). 

in  this  work  being  named  for  the  product  yielded  by  them;  and  the  il- 
lustration is  immediately  followed  by  the  description  of  the  two  animals 
se  and  si,  so  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  figure,  in  the  mind 
of  the  author,  is  intended  for  the  rhinoceros.  It  will  certainly  not 
induce  us  to  propose  for  the  word  si  the  new  translation  "cervine  an- 
imal;" but  a  rhinoceros  of  cervine  character  has  really  existed  in  the 
imagination  of  the  ancient  world.  The  idea  started  from  India,  has 
taken  a  footing  in  the  classical  authors,  and  long  survived  even  down  to 
our  middle  ages.  It  is  a  fascinating  story,  deserving  full  discussion, 
the  more  so  as  it  has  never  been  clearly  and  correctly  set  forth.  Two 
classical  texts  may  first  be  quoted  which  fit  well  as  an  explanation  to 
our  Chinese  woodcut.  PLINY  (Nat.  hist.,  VIII,  21)  tells  regarding  the 
Orsaean  Indians  that  "they  hunt  the  indomitable,  fierce  monoceros 
(unicorn)  which  has  the  head  of  a  stag,  the  feet  of  the  elephant,  the 


1  Regarding  this  work  and  its  history  see  Toung  Poo,  1913,  p.  351.    In  the  edi- 
tion of  1523  from  which  our  illustration  is  taken  it  is  in  Ch.  17,  fol.  20  b. 


no  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

tail  of  a  boar,  while  the  rest  of  the  body  is  like  that  of  the  horse;  it 
emits  a  deep  roar,  and  has  on  the  middle  of  its  forehead  a  single  black 
horn  two  cubits  in  length.  This  beast,  it  is  asserted,  cannot  be  captured 
alive."1  In  the  Cyranides,  a  curious  Greek  work  written  between  227 
and  400  A.D.,2  it  is  said,  "The  rhinoceros  is  a  quadruped  resembling  the 
stag,  having  a  very  large  horn  on  its  nose.  It  can  be  captured  only  by 
means  of  the  perfume  and  the  beauty  of  well  dressed  women;  it  is  indeed 
much  inclined  toward  love."8  The  importance  of  this  passage,  first 
of  all,  rests  on  the  fact  that  the  single-horned  cervine  animal  is  here 
clearly  identified  with  the  rhinoceros,  an  identification  not  yet  made  by 
Pliny,  who  speaks  of  rhinoceros  and  monoceros  as  two  distinct  species; 
and  we  remember  that  Cosmas  Indicopleustes  makes  the  same  distinc- 
tion in  regard  to  India.  In  his  introduction,  F.  DE  MELY*  observes 
that  the  Cyranides  is  the  first  work  to  reveal  to  us  the  starting-point  of 
the  legend  of  the  chase  of  the  unicorn  which  is  nothing  but  the  rhino- 
ceros. This,  however,  is  very  inexact.  The  first  Occidental  source 
relating  this  legend  is  the  Physiologus  which  is  older  than  the  Cyranides. 
The  Physiologus6  tells  of  the  monoceros  that  it  is  a  small  animal  re- 
sembling a  buck,  but  very  cunning;  the  hunter  cannot  approach  it,  as 
it  possesses  great  strength;  the  horn  grows  in  the  centre  of  its  head;  it 
can  be  captured  only  by  a  pure  virgin  who  suckles  it;  then  she  seizes  it, 
and  carries  it  into  the  palace  of  the  king;  or  according  to  another  version, 
the  unicorn  falls  asleep  while  in  the  lap  of  the  virgin,  whereupon  the 
hunters  gradually  approach  and  fetter  it.  The  monoceros  is  located  by 
PLINY  in  India;  and  the  western  legend  of  the  unicorn  ensnared  by 
a  virgin  was  first  traced  by  S.  BEALB  to  the  ancient  Indian  legend  of 
Ekagringa,  the  hermit  Single  Horn.  H.  LUDERS,T  who  has  traced  with 
great  ingenuity  the  development  of  the  legend  in  the  sources  of  Indian 

1  Orsaei  Indi  .  .  .  venantur  asperrimam  autem  feram  monocerotem,  reliquo 
corpore  equo  similem,  capite  cervo,  pedibus  elephanto,  cauda  apro,  mugitu  gravi,  uno 
cornu  nigro  media  f rente  cubitorum  duum  eminente.  hanc  feram  vivam  negant  capi. 
(Ed.  of  C.  MAYHOFF,  Vol.  II,  p.  104.) 

1  F.  DE  MfiLY,  Les  lapidaires  grecs,  p.  LXXI;  DE  MELY  is  the  first  editor  and 
translator  of  this  work. 

1 L.  c.,  p.  90. 

4  L.  c.,  p.  LXV. 

SF.  LAUCHERT,  Geschichte  des  Physiologus,  pp.  22,  254  (Strassburg,  1889);  F. 
HOMMEL,  Die  aethiopische  Vbersetzung  des  Physiologus,  p.  68  (Leipzig,  1877);  E. 
PETERS,  Der  griechische  Physiologus  und  seine  orientalischen  Ubersetzungen,  p.  34 
(Berlin,  1898);  K.  AHRENS,  Das  "Buch  der  Naturgegenstande,"  p.  43  (Kiel,  1892). 

'The  Romantic  Legend  of  C^kyamuni  Buddha,  p.  125;  see  also  his  Buddhist 
Records  of  the  Western  World,  Vol.  I,  p.  113. 

7  Die  Sage  von  Rsyasringa  (Nachrichten  d.  k.  Ges.  d.  Wiss.  zu  Gottingen,  1897, 
pp.  1-49),  p.  29;  an  additional  study  from  his  pen  on  the  same  subject  ibid.,  1901, 
pp.  1-29. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  in 

literature,  justly  points  out  that  all  our  mediaeval  versions  of  the  story,1 
as  a  last  resort,  go  back  to  the  Greek  Physiologus,  and  that  the  last 
clause  of  the  Greek  text  contains  a  visible  trace  of  the  old  Indian  legend 
of  the  king's  daughter  who  carries  away  the  penitent  into  the  palace 
of  her  father.  Luders  rises  also  against  the  view  of  Lauchert,  who  inter- 
prets the  story  in  Physiologus  from  a  misunderstood  passage  of  AELIAN 
(XVI,  20) ;  and  I  am  in  full  accord  with  the  criticism  of  Luders,  to  which 
the  argument  should  be  added  that  this  alleged  influence  of  Aelian  on  the 
Physiologus  is  out  of  the  question,  as  Aelian  is  in  time  posterior  to  the 
latter.2  F.  W.  K.  MILLER  studied  the  same  question  in  connection 
with  a  Japanese  No  play,  the  plot  of  which  is  the  legend  of  Ekagringa.8 
Muller  likewise  thinks  Lauchert's  explanation  to  be  hardly  plausible, 
and  admits,  with  excellent  arguments,  the  dependence  of  the  Physiologus 
story  on  the  tradition  of  India.  There  is  but  one  point  in  which  my 
opinion  differs  from  the  one  expressed  by  Muller.  Muller,  at  the  close 
of  his  highly  interesting  study ,  advances  the  theory  that  the  real  unicorn, 
as  already  recognized  by  Marco  Polo,  may  always  have  been  the 

1  Of  the  mediaeval  versions,  that  of  JOHN  TZETZES,  the  Byzantine  poet  and  gram- 
marian, who  flourished  during  the  twelfth  century,  in  his  Chiliades  (v,  398),  deserves 
special  mention :  "  The  monoceros  carries  a  horn  on  the  middle  of  its  forehead.  This 
animal  is  passionately  fond  of  perfumes.  It  is  hunted  in  this  manner.  A  young  man 
disguised  as  a  woman  exhaling  the  odor  of  the  most  exquisite  perfumes  takes  his 
position  in  the  places  frequented  by  this  quadruped.  The  hunters  lie  in  ambush  at  a 
short  distance.  The  odor  of  the  perfumes  soon  attracts  the  monoceros  toward  the 
young  man;  it  caresses  him,  and  he  covers  its  eyes  with  perfumed  woman's  gloves. 
The  hunters  hasten  to  the  spot,  seize  the  animal  which  does  not  offer  resistance,  cut 
off  its  horn,  which  is  an  excellent  antidote  to  poison,  and  send  it  back,  without  in- 
flicting on  it  further  harm." 

1  Claudius  Aelianus  flourished  under  Septimius  Severus,  and  probably  outlived 
Elagabalus  (218-222  A.D.).  His  writings  come  down  from  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century  (BAUMGARTEN,  POLAND,  and  WAGNER,  Die  hellenistisch-romische  Kultur, 
p.  615,  Leipzig,  1913),  while  the  Physiologus  was  written  in  Alexandria  as  early  as  the 
second  century  (ibid.,  p.  622).  Little  is  known  about  Aelian's  life;  only  Philostratus 
and  Suidas  have  some  brief  notes  regarding  him.  He  availed  himself  of  the  writings 
of  Athenaeus,  who  wrote  at  the  time  of  Elagabalus,  or  in  the  first  years  of  Alexander 
Severus](222-235) ;  Philostratus  mentions  his  death  in  his  Lives  of  Sophists  composed 
between  222  and  244.  As  regards  the  Physiologus,  it  is  necessary  to  discriminate 
between  the  final  Greek  recension  clothed  in  a  Christian-theological  garb,  as  we  have 
it  now,  and  the  primeval  source  or  sources  of  animal  stories  without  the  allegories, 
from  which  the  former  was  extracted.  LAUCHERT  (/.  c.,  p.  42)  certainly  is  quite  right 
in  rejecting  the  hypothesis  of  an  "  Urphysiologus"  in  the  sense  that  it  was  a  literary 
production  serving  as  model  to  our  Physiologus;  but  a  primeval  Physiologus  must  be 
presupposed  for  about  the  beginning  of  the  first  century,  in  the  sense  that  it  simply 
was  an  assemblage  of  verbal  stories  current  in  Alexandria,  and  some  of  which  were 
imported  from  India  (compare  T'oung  Poo,  1913,  pp.  361-4). 

1  Ikkaku  sennin,  eine  mittelalterliche  japanische  Oper  (Bastian  Festschrift, 
PP-  5*3-538.  Berlin,  1896).  Luders,  whose  work  appeared  in  1897,  did  not  take  note 
of  Muller's  investigation ;  it  seems  that  the  treatises  of  both  scholars  originated  about 
the  same  time,  and  independently  of  each  other.  Compare  also  J.  TAKAKUSU,  The 
Story  of  the  Rsi  Ekasrnga  (Hansei  Zasshi,  Vol.  XIII,  1898,  pp.  10-18);  and  K. 
WADAGAKI,  Monoceros,  The  Rishi  (ibid.,  pp.  19-24). 


ii2  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

rhinoceros.  Also  O.  KELLER1  has  arrived  at  the  same  result,  and 
reduced  all  ancient  traditions  and  representations  of  the  unicorn  to  the 
Indian  rhinoceros.  This  opinion  seems  to  me  fundamentally  wrong. 
Not  one  of  the  numerous  variants  of  the  ancient  Indian  tradition  re- 
garding the  Hermit  Single-Hofn  alludes  in  this  connection  to  the 
rhinoceros;  he  is  miraculously  born  from  a  gazelle,  and  has  received  his 
horn  from  the  latter.2  Single-Horn  is  not  even  his  original  name,  but 
this  one  was  Antelope-Horn  (Rishya-cringa) ;  and  according  to  LUDERS,* 
the  name  Single-Horn  has  arisen  from  the  latter,  owing  to  popular 
etymological  re-interpretation  caused  by  the  tradition,  already  appearing 
in  the  Mahabharata  that  the  penitent  had  a  single  horn  on  his  head.  In 
other  texts,  the  Padmapurana,  Skandapurana,  and  Kanjur,  he  is  even 
equipped  with  two  horns,  while  the  versions  of  the  Ramayana  and  the 
Pali  Jataka  make  no  statement  with  regard  to  the  horn.  The  Greek 
Physiologus,  in  the  story  alluded  to,  avails  itself  of  the  word  monokeros 
("unicorn"),  which  literally  corresponds  in  meaning  to  Sanskrit  Eka- 
gringa,  and  describes  the  creature  as  a  small  animal  resembling  a  buck, 
without  any  qualities  inherent  in  the  rhinoceros;  and  this  is  plainly 
corroborated  by  the  illustration  accompanying  the  Physiologus,  in 

1  Die  antike  Tierwelt,  Vol.  I,  pp.  415-420;  this  is  presumably  the  weakest  chapter 
of  an  otherwise  intelligent  and  excellent  book.    I  do  not  understand  how  Keller  arrives 
at  the  opinion  that  the  ancients  in  general  treat  monoceros,  unicornis,  and  rhinoceros 
as  identical  notions,  and  in  most  cases  conceive  them  as  the  African  rhinoceros.    The 
historical  connection  of  the  unicorn  legend  with  Ekagringa  has  escaped  Keller  en- 
tirely. 

2  The  iconography  of  Ekac.ringa  in  Indian  art  has  been  traced  by  LUDERS  and 
MtiLLER.    It  is  notable  that  any  suggestion  of  a  rhinoceros  is  absent.    As  proved  by 
the  masks  of  the  hermit  used  in  the  dramatic  plays  of  Japan  and  Tibet  (Plate  X), 
he  was  conceived  as  a  human  being  with  a  single,  short,  forked  horn,  or  with 
a  very  long,  curved  horn.    The  illustration  of  the  Japanese  mask  is  derived  from 
the  work  Nogaku  dai-jiten  (Dictionary  of  No  Plays)  by  Masada  ShOjirO  and  Amaya 
Kangichi   (Tokyo,    1908;  compare  Bulletin  de  I'Ecole  jranqaise  d*  Extreme-Orient, 
Vol.  IX,  1909,  p.  607).    The  Tibetan  mask,  much  worn  off  by  long  use,  was  obtained 
by  me  from  a  monastery  of  Bagme,  in  the  western  part  of  the  province  of  Sze-ch'uan. 
It  is  very  striking  that  the  rhinoceros  hardly  plays  any  rdle  in  the  culture-life,  folk- 
lore, or  mythology  of  India.    The  allusions  to  it  in  literary  records  are  exceedingly 
sparse.    The  word  khadga  appears  but  a  few  times  in  Vedic  literature,  a  rhinoceros- 
hide  being  mentioned  in  one  passage  as  the  covering  of  a  chariot  (MACDONELL  and 
KEITH,  Vedic  Index,  Vol.  I,  p.  213,  London,  1912).    The  animal  is  mentioned  in  the 
inscriptions  of  King  Acoka  (third  century  B.C.);  and  the  consumption  of  its  flesh,' 
blood,  and  urine  plays  a  certain  r61e  in  Indian  pharmacology  (see  CHAKRAVARTI, 
Mem.  As.  Soc.  Beng.,  Vol.  I,  p.  370,  Calcutta,  1906;  and  HOOPER,  /.  As.  Soc.  Beng., 
Vol.  VI,  1910,  p.  518).    It  is  very  curious  that  no  Indian  record  regarding  rhinoceros- 
horn  cups  and  their  antipoisonous  virtues  has  as  yet  been  pointed  out;  our  information 
on  this  point  rests  on  Ctesias,  Aelian  (see  below,  p.  115),  some  Arabic  authors,  and 
more  recent  observers  like  Linschoten  and  GARCIA  AB  HORTO  (Aromatum  et  simph'ci- 
um  aliquot  medicamentorum  apud  Indos  nascentium  historia,  p.  66,  Antverpiae, 
I567),  who  says,  "  Illud  tamen  scio  Bengala  incolas  eius  cornu  adversus  venena  usur- 
pare,  unicornu  esse  existimantes,  tametsi  non  sit,  ut  ii  referunt  qui  se  probe  scire  autu- 
mant."    It  remains  to  be  pointed  out  also  that  the  literatures  of  India  contain  no 
accounts  of  unicorns. 

1 L.  c.,  p.  28. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  113 

which  the  animal  is  outlined  as  a  long-tailed  antelope  with  a  large 
single  horn  curved  like  that  of  a  gazelle.1  PLINY,  as  we  saw,  credits  the 
monoceros  of  India  with  the  head  of  a  stag  and  a  single  horn  on  its  fore- 
head (that  is,  the  gazelle-horned  Ekagringa),  but  does  not  identify  it 
with  the  rhinoceros,  which  was  well  known  to  him  from  the  circus.  For 
the  first  time,  as  far  as  the  West  is  concerned,  the  identification  of  the 
single-horned  cervine  animal  with  the  rhinoceros  is  made  in  the  Cy- 
ramdes.2  In  the  East,  the  first  intimation  of  it  leaks  out  in  our  Chinese 
illustration  from  Chtng  lei  pen  ts'ao,  which  depicts  the  rhinoceros  in  the 
form  of  a  deer  with  one  horn  on  its  forehead,  and  which,  without  any 
doubt,  is  an  offshoot  of  the  Indian  conception  of  Ekacrihga.  Now,  we 
encounter  the  curious  fact  that  at  a  much  older  date  also  the  Chinese 
mention  a  single-horned  deer  under  the  name  p'ao  (No.  9104),  described 
in  the  Erh  ya  as  an  animal  "with  the  tail  of  an  ox  and  one  horn."  PAL- 
LADius3  straightway  translated  the  word  by  "rhinoceros,"  but  this 
venture  is  not  justified  by  Chinese  tradition;  the  Chinese,  in  this 
case,  make  no  reference  whatever  to  the  rhinoceros.  On  the  contrary, 
Kuo  P'o,  the  editor  and  interpreter  of  Erh  ya,  states  that  the  animal 
p*ao  is  identical  with  the  deer  called  chang  (No.  407) ;  and  Yen  Shi-ku 
(579-645),  as  quoted  in  K'ang-hi's  Dictionary,  maintains  that  it  re- 
sembles in  shape  the  deer  chang.  The  very  definition  shows  that  the 
animal  p'ao  is  a  near  cousin  of  the  k'i-lin*  which  has  likewise  "the  tail 

1  Figured  by  STRZYGOWSKI,  Der  Bilderkreis  des  griechischen  Physiologus,  Plate 
XII  (Byzantinische  Zeitschrift,  Erganzungsheft  I,  1899),  and  KELLER  (/.  c.,  p.  419). 
Regarding  the  illuminated  editions  of  the  Physiologus  see  also  O.  M.  DALTON,  Byzan- 
tine Art,  p.  482  (Oxford,  1911). 

*  Neither  LIJDERS  nor  MULLER  has  consulted  these  two  important  passages  of 
Pliny  and  the  Cyranides. 

*  Chinese-Russian  Dictionary,  Vol.  I,  p.  58. 

4  At  times  a  temptation  was  felt  to  identify  the  animal  lin  with  the  rhinoceros. 
Shen  Kua,  the  versatile  author  of  the  Ming  k'i  pi  fan  of  the  twelfth  century,  narrates 
that  in  the  period  Chi-ho  (1054-56)  the  country  Kiao-chi  (Annam)  offered  a  lin  like 
an  ox,  having  the  entire  body  covered  with  large  scales  and  a  single  horn  on  its  head. 
There  is  no  question  that  this  animal  was  a  rhinoceros;  this  follows  also  from  the 
further  observation  of  the  author  that  it  did  not  resemble  the  lin,  as  described  in 
ancient  records,  and  that  there  were  people  designating  it  as  a  mountain-rhinoceros 
(shan  si,  a  variety  recognized  also  by  Li  Shi-chen).  But  as  Sh6n  Kua  could  not  trace 
any  report  in  which  scales  are  attributed  to  the  rhinoceros  (for  explanation  see  p.  149), 
he  formed  the  erroneous  theory  that  the  animal  in  question  was  identical  with  the 
T'ien-lu  cast  in  bronze  by  the  Emperor  Ling  in  186  A.D.,  a  specimen  of  which  he  had 
beheld  at  Nan-yang  in  Teng  chou  in  Ho-nan.  In  a  similar  manner,  Fan  Ch6n  of  the 
Sung  period,  in  his  work  Tung  chai  ki  ski  (Ch.  I,  p.  8;  in  Shou  shan  ko  ts'ung  shu, 
Vol.  84),  tells  the  story  of  two  K'i-lin  sent  as  tribute  from  Kiao-chi  in  the  period  Kia- 
yu  (1056-63),  which  he  had  occasion  to  see  in  the  imperial  palace.  He  describes  them 
as  having  the  shape  of  water-buffalo  clad  with  a  fleshy  armor,  and  equipped  with  a 
single  horn  on  the  extremity  of  the  nose;  they  subsisted  on  grass,  fruit,  and  melon, 
and  every  time  before  feeding  had  to  be  beaten  on  their  horns  with  a  stick.  This 
writer  likewise  concludes  with  a  discussion,  in  which  serious  doubts  of  the  identifica- 
tion of  these  animals  with  the  lin  are  expressed. 


ii4  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

of  an  ox  and  a  single  horn." l  Indeed  in  the  Erh  yu  f  w,  both  creatures 
are  figured  almost  alike,  and  agree  in  their  essential  characteristics. 
It  is  obvious  that,  as  iconographic  types,  these  creatures  are  not  derived 
from  any  rhinoceros,  but  point  in  the  direction  of  the  fabulous  one- 
horned  monsters  (known  in  archaeology  as  "Oriental  animals")  de- 
veloped in  the  art  of  Mesopotamia.2  In  regard  to  the  type  of  k*i-lin, 
this  has  been  aptly  pointed  out  by  A.  GRUNWEDEL;*  and  as  the  same 
West-Asiatic  forms  found  their  way  into  the  art  of  India,  we  here  have 
the  basis  for  the  origin  of  the  single-horned  gazelle  (deer  or  antelope) 
transferred  to,  or  personified  in,  the  person  of  Ekac.ririga.  In  Baby- 
lonia, these  types  of  unicorn  are  very  ancient,  going  back  to  the  third 
millennium  B.C.,4  and  could  not  have  been  developed  there  from  a 
rhinoceros.  The  conclusion  therefore  presents  itself  that  the  notion  of 
a  unicorn  cervine  animal  which  was  developed  in  Western  Asia  from 
remote  times  spread  together  with  artistic  motives  into  India  and 
China,5  while  the  identification  of  this  fabulous  creature  with  the 

1  Regarding  the  k'i-lin  see  Yen  Shi-ku  (in  Ts'ien  Han  shu,  Ch.  6,  p.  5  b) ;  MAYERS 
(Chinese  Reader's  Manual,  p.  127);  F.  W.  K.  MILLER  (in  Feestbundel  aan  P.  J.  Veth, 
p.  222,  Leiden,  1894);  DE  GROOT  (The  Religious  System  of  China,  Vol.  II,  pp.  822- 
4);  and  H.  DOR£  (Recherches  sur  les  superstitions  en  Chine,  pt.  I,  Vol.  II,  pp.  446-8). 
I  dp  not  subscribe  to  everything  that  the  last  two  authors  say  about  the  subject.  The 
Chinese  illustrations  are  reproduced  in  C.  GOULD  (Mythical  Monsters,  pp.  350,  353, 
354,  London,  1886). 

8  A  distinction  must  be  made  between  iconographic  or  archaeological  type  or 
artistic  representation,  and  traditions  or  speculations  regarding  such  a  type.  The 
lin,  as  early  mentioned  in  Shi  king  and  Li  ki,  may  very  well  be  an  indigenous  Chinese 
thought.  Nevertheless  its  subsequent  portrayal  in  art  rests  on  a  borrowed  type, 
which  has  again  fertilized  native  ideas  as  to  form  and  behavior  of  the  creature.  An 
interesting  example  of  the  fact  that  iconography  and  literary  tradition  may  move 
along  lines  widely  different  and  emanating  from  diverse  sources  is  afforded  by  the 
unicorn  of  Europe.  The  unicorn  tradition  of  the  Physiologus  is  traceable  to  India; 
the  iconography  of  the  creature,  however,  has  no  connection  with  Indian  art,  but 
leans  in  the  beginning  toward  the  ancient  West-Asiatic  types.  Throughout  the 
middle  ages,  there  is  not  a  trace  of  the  rhinoceros  in  the  representations  of  the  unicorn 
(compare  Marco  Polo's  astonishment  when  he  saw  the  ugly  beast  on  Java,  "not  in 
the  least  like  that  which  our  stories  tell  of  as  being  caught  in  the  lap  of  a  virgin,  in 
fact,  altogether  different  from  what  we  fancied");  now  it  is  an  antelope,  now  an  ox, 
now  a  narwhal,  now  a  hybrid  formation  composed  of  various  creatures.  My  opinion 
in  this  respect  deviates  from  the  one  expressed  by  STRZYGOWSKI  (/.  c.)  that  there  may 
be  interaction  between  the  animal  types  of  the  earliest  Buddhist  art  in  India  and  those 
of  the  Physiologus.  It  is  not  there  the  question  of  interaction,  but  of  affinity,  solely 
caused  by  West-Asiatic  productions  which  both  have  in  common  as  their  source. 

1  Bemerkungen  uber  das  Kilin  (Feestbundel  aan  P.  J.  Veth,  pp.  223-5,  Leiden, 
1894),  and  Buddhist  Art  in  India,  p.  19. 

4  E.  SCHRADER,  Die  Vorstellung  vom  monokeros  und  ihr  Ursprung  (Abhandlungen 
der  preussischen  Akademie,  1892,  pp.  573-581). 

6  In  order  to  dispel  the  doubts  of  those  who  may  not  feel  inclined  in  this  case  to 
link  China  with  the  West,  another  striking  analogy  may  be  indicated,  which  will  show 
that  Chinese  ideas  regarding  unicorns  coincide  with  those  entertained  in  the  West, 
and  which  crop  up  in  the  classical  authors.  In  the  Erh  ya  is  denned  an  animal  called 
chui  (written  with  the  classifier  'horse'  and  the  phonetic  complement  sui,  No.  10,388), 
'  'like  a  horse  with  a  single  horn ;  those  without  horn  are  spotted."  Kuo  P'o  comments, 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  115 

rhinoceros  —  owing  to  the  single  horn  —  is  the  product  of  a  much  later 
period;  this  is  not  the  starting-point,  but  the  final  result  of  the  matter. 
It  is,  of  course,  necessary  to  assume  that  this  result  was  brought  about 
in  India  itself;  1  otherwise  it  would  be  unintelligible  why  it  appears  on 
the  surface  in  the  Cyranides  and  in  China.2  In  my  opinion,  we  are  even 

"In  the  eighth  year  of  the  period  Yuan-k'ang  (298  A.D.)  it  was  in  the  territory  of 
Kiu-chen  (in  Tonking)  that  hunters  captured  a  wild  animal  of  the  size  of  a  horse  with 
one  horn,  the  horn  being  soft  as  the  core  of  the  young  antlers  of  the  deer  (lu  Jung). 
This  is  identical  with  the  animal  chui.  At  present  men  sometimes  meet  it  in  the  dense 
mountainous  jungles,  and  there  are  among  them  also  those  without  horn."  Kiu-ch6n 
is  situated  in,Tonking;  and  on  p.  81  mention  has  been  made  of  the  tribute  of  a  live  rhi- 
noceros sent  from  there  to  the  Emperor  Ling  (168-188  A.D.);  indeed,  that  region  was 
always  famed  for  this  animal,  which  is  apparently  intended  in  the  text  of  Kuo  P'o. 
The  same  conception  of  the  rhinoceros  as  a  horse  or  horse-like  animal  with  a  single 
horn  is  met  likewise  in  the  West.  The  ancients  enumerate  altogether  five  animals  as 
having  single  horns,  the  Indian  ass  first  traceable  to  Ctesias,  the  single-horned  ox, 
the  monoceros,  the  single-horned  horse,  and  the  oryx  of  Africa.  STRABO  (xv,  56) 
quotes  from  Megasthenes'  remarks  upon  Indian  animals  that  there  are  horses  in 
India  with  one  horn.  AELIAN  (Nat.  anim.,  in,  41)  says,  "India,  it  is  reported,  pro- 
duces horses  with  a  single  horn,  likewise  single-horned  asses.  Cups  are  made  from 
these  horns;  and  if  a  mortal  poison  is  poured  into  them,  it  will  do  no  harm  to  him  who 
drinks  it,  for  the  horn  of  both  animals  seems  to  be  an  antidote  against  poison."  In 
another  chapter  (xvi,  20)  AELIAN  describes  the  unicorn  of  the  Indians,  "called  by 
them  kartazonos  [a  word  apparently  connected  with  Assyrian  kurkizannu,  mentioned 
above,  p.  87],  said  to  equal  in  size  a  full-grown  horse."  HORACE  (Serm.,  i,  5,  58-60) 
speaks  of  a  wild  horse  having  a  single  horn  in  the  midst  of  its  forehead.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  rhinoceros  has  no  similarity  to  a  horse;  and  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the 
simile  could  ever  arise.  The  bare  fact  remains,  however,  that  it  did;  but  it  is  incon- 
ceivable that  this  notion,  not  founded  on  a  natural  observation,  could  spontaneously 
spring  up  in  the  West  and  East  alike.  There  is  no  other  way  out  of  this  puzzle  than 
to  presume  that  India,  to  which  the  account  of  Megasthenes  reproduced  by  Strabo 
and  Aelian  refers,  is  responsible  for  this  idea,  and  disseminated  it  to  the  West  and  to 
China. 

1  It  may  be  pointed  out  in  this  connection,  though  it  is  not  wholly  conclusive  for 
the  present  case,  that  the  Sanskrit  word  vdrdhranasa  means  a  rhinoceros  and  an  old 
white  goat-buck. 

1  We  meet  also  in  ancient  China  a  unicorn  conceived  of  as  a  wild  goat.  This  is 
the  animal  termed  chat  (No.  245)  and  hiai  (No.  4423)  chai.  The  fundamental  passage 
relating  to  it  is  in  the  Annals  of  the  Later  Han  Dynasty  (Hou  Han  shu,  Ch.  40,  p.  3), 
where  a  judicial  cap  in  the  shape  of  this  animal,  and  worn  by  the  censors,  is  mentioned. 
The  definition  given  of  the  animal  in  the  text  of  the  Annals  is,  "A  divine  goat  (shin 
yang)  which  is  able  to  discriminate  between  right  and  wrong,  and  which  the  king 
of  Ch'u  used  to  capture."  Huai-nan-tse  is  quoted  in  K'ang-hi  (under  hiai)  as  saying 
that  King  Wen  of  Ch'u  was  fond  of  wearing  hiai  caps;  the  un-Chinese  word  hiai  chat, 
therefore,  will  probably  be  a  word  of  the  language  of  Ch'u  (T.  DE  LACOUPERIE,  Les 
langues  de  la  Chine  avant  les  Chinois,  p.  17,  Paris,  1888),  as  above  all  proved  by  the 
vacillating  modes  of  writing  (FoRKE,  Lun-heng,  pt.  II,  p.  321).  The  comment  added 
to  the  text  of  Hou  Han  shu  is  extracted  from  /  wu  chi,  which  may  be  read  in  SCHLE- 
GEL'S  Uranographie  chinoise,  p.  587  (it  is,  of  course,  impossible,  as  proposed  by  Schle- 
gel,  to  identify  the  animal  with  the  Tibetan  chiru;  see  below,  p.  120).  It  is  not  stated 
in  Hou  Han  shu  nor  in  /  wu  chi  (nor  in  K'ang-hi)  that  "it  eats  fire  in  its  ravenous  fury, 
even  to  its  own  destruction  "  (GILES).  This  is  a  subsequent  addition  which  arose  un- 
der the  influence  of  Buddhist  art.  F.  W.  K.  MILLER  (Fecstbundel  aan  P.  J.  Veth, 
p.  222,  Leiden,  1894)  has  recognized  correctly  that  this  explanation  is  derived  from 
the  iconography  of  the  animal,  which  is  represented  as  being  surrounded  by  flames. 
Muller,  however,  omits  to  state  that  this  is  a  secondary  development,  which  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  previous  pre-Buddhistic  conception  of  the  creature  on  Chinese 
soil,  when  it  was  not  equipped  with  flames,  nor  set  in  relation  with  a  lion.  The 


n6  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

forced  to  admit  that  the  counterpart  to  the  illustration  of  the  Chtng 
lei  p£n  ts'ao  has  already  pre-existed  in  India,  and  was  transmitted  from 
there  to  China;  for  neither  the  author  of  that  work,  nor  any  other 
Chinese  source,  as  far  as  I  know,  furnishes  any  explanation  for  this 
picture.  An  unexpected  confirmation  of  this  opinion  comes  to  us  from 
another  quarter, —  Tibet. 

In  the  Tibetan  language  we  meet  the  word  bse-ru  which  at  present 
denotes  two  animals, — first,  the  rhinoceros,  and  second,  a  kind  of 
antelope.  The  former  is  the  original  and  older  significance,  the  latter  is 
secondary.  The  second  element  of  the  compound,  ru,  means  "horn," 
and  may  be  dropped;  the  proper  word  is  bse  (pronounced  se).  The 
stem  is  se,  the  prefixed  labial  6-  not  being  part  of  the  word-stem,  and 
like  most  prefixes  in  Tibetan  nouns,  representing  the  survival  of  an 
ancient  numerative.  This  is  corroborated  by  the  corresponding  Lepcha 
word  sa  and  the  Chinese  word  se,  all  three  referring  to  the  rhinoceros. 
This  linguistic  coincidence  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Chinese  and 
Tibetans  as  stocks  of  the  large  Indo-Chinese  family  of  peoples  were 
acquainted  with  the  rhinoceros  in  prehistoric  times,  for  otherwise  they 
could  not  have  the  word  for  it  in  common;  and  this  conclusion  will  be 
fully  upheld  by  our  historical  inquiry  into  the  subject.  This  fact  of 
comparative  philology  is  also  apt  to  refute  the  supposition  of  Mr. 
Giles  that  "a  term  which  originally  meant  a  bovine  animal  was  later  on 
wrongly  applied  to  the  rhinoceros."  As  proved  by  comparison  with  the 
Tibetan  and  Lepcha  words,  the  Chinese  term  originally  must  have 
designated  the  rhinoceros.1  Above  all  it  is  incumbent  upon  me  to 
demonstrate  that  the  Tibetan  word  bse  really  designates  the  rhinoceros, 
and  that  the  Tibetans  were  familiar  with  this  animal.  The  ancient 


translation  "lion-unicorn"  adopted  by  Muller  is  not  to  the  point,  as  far  as  the  time 
of  Chinese  antiquity  is  concerned.  The  kiai  chai  is  not  explained  as  a  lion  (nor  could 
this  be  expected,  as  the  lion  was  unknown  in  ancient  China),  but  as  a  divine  wild 
goat  (sh&n  yang).  The  fact  that  the  conception  of  the  animal  existed  among  the 
Chinese  in  times  prior  to  the  contact  with  India  is  clearly  proved  by  the  occurrence  of 
the  word  in  Huai-nan-tse,  in  Tso  chuan  (Suan  Wang  I7th  year:  LEGGE,  Chinese 
Classics,  Vol.  V,  p.  332),  Se-ma  Ts'ien's  Shi  ki  (Ch.  117),  Lun  htng,  Hou  Han  shu, 
Erh  ya,  and  Shuo  wdn.  Only  in  such  late  compilations  as  the  Japanese  version  of  the 
San  ts'ai  t'u  hui  do  we  meet  the  statement  that  the  animal  resembles  a  lion,  merely 
because  it  is  sketched  like  a  lion  crowned  with  a  single  horn  (see  L.  SERRURIER, 
Encycl.  japonaise,  le  chapitre  des  quadruples,  Plate  III;  or  E.  KAEMPFER,  The 
History  of  Japan,  Vol.  I,  p.  195,  Glasgow,  1906).  The  connection  of  this  creature 
with  the  rhinoceros,  and  its  transformation  into  a  goat,  will  be  discussed  below  (p.  171). 

1  The  hypothesis  of  such  "confusions, "  which  are  usually  assumed  to  suit  one's 
own  convenience,  is  untenable  also  for  other  reasons  obvious  to  every  ethnologist: 
people  in  the  primitive  stages  of  culture,  being  nearer  to  nature  than  we,  are  surely 
the  keenest  observers  of  animal  life  and  habits,  and  will  most  assuredly  never  con- 
found a  bovine  animal  with  a  rhinoceros;  they  may,  by  way  of  explanation,  compare 
the  one  with  the  other,  but  from  comparison  to  confusion  is  a  wide  step. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  117 

Sanskrit-Tibetan  dictionary  Mahavyutpatti1  renders  the  Tibetan 
word  bse  by  the  Sanskrit  word  ganda  which  refers  to  the  rhinoceros.2 
Wherever  this  word  appears  in  the  works  of  Sanskrit  Buddhist  litera- 
ture, it  is  faithfully  reproduced  in  the  Tibetan  translations  by  the  word 
bse.  An  interesting  example  of  its  application  appears  in  a  Tibetan 
work  from  the  first  part  of  the  ninth  century. 3  It  is  well  known  that  in 
India  the  Pratyeka-Buddha  was  styled  Single-Horn  Hermit  and  com- 
pared with  the  solitary  rhinoceros;4  and  this  simile  is  explained  in  that 
Tibetan  book  in  the  words  that  the  Pratyeka-Buddha,  who  in  the 
course  of  a  hundred  eons  (kalpa),  through  the  accumulation  of  merit,  is 
no  longer  like  ordinary  beings,  resembles  the  rhinoceros  in  his  habit  of 
living  in  the  same  solitary  abode.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  this 
early  Tibetan  text  the  word  bse-ru  is  used  for  the  designation  of  the 
rhinoceros.  This  comparison  has  passed  into  Tibetan  poetry,  and  is 
frequently  employed  by  the  mystic  and  poet  Milaraspa,  who  speaks  of 
himself  as  being  "lonely  like  a  rhinoceros."6  This  meaning  of  bse  is 
confirmed  by  two  Chinese  lexicographical  sources,  —  the  Hua  i  yi  yti, 
which  in  its  Tibetan-Chinese  vocabulary 6  renders  bse-ru  by  Chinese 
si  niu;  and  the  Polyglot  Dictionary  of  the  Emperor  K'ien-lung  (Ch.  31, 
p.  4  a),  where  bse  is  explained  by  Chinese  si  ("rhinoceros").  The 
national  Tibetan  word  bse,  akin  to  Lepcha  sa  and  Chinese  se,  naturally 
bears  out  the  fact  that  the  ancient  Tibetans  were  familiar  with  the 

1  Tanjur  (Palace  edition),  Sutra,  Vol.  123,  fol.  265  a.  This  work  was  written  in 
the  first  part  of  the  ninth  century. 

*  Al-Berunl  (SACHAU,  Alberuni's  India,  Vol.  I,  p.  203)  knew  this  word,  and  cor- 
rectly described  under  it  the  rhinoceros  of  India  (p.  95).    It  is  likewise  mentioned  by 
GARCIA  AB  HORTO  (/.  c.)  and  other  early  European  travellers  enumerated  by  YULE 
and  BURNELL  (Hobson-Jobson,  p.  363).    The  rhinoceros  brought  to  Portugal  in  1515 
(mentioned  above,  p.  83)  was  labelled  "rhinocero,  called  in  Indian  gomda." 

1  Entitled  Sgra  sbyor  bam-po  gnis-pa  (Tanjur,  Satra,  Vol.  124,  fol.  14  a,  4),  cor- 
rectly dated  by  G.  HUTH  (Sitzungsberichte  der  preussischen  Akademie,  1895,  p.  277) 
in  the  first  part  of  the  ninth  century.  Compare  also  the  application  of  the  word  in 
Taranatha  (SCHIEFNER'S  translation,  p.  245):  the  sorcerer  Ri-ri-pa  summoned  the 
fierce  beasts  of  the  forest,  the  rhinoceros  and  others,  and  mbunted  on  their  backs. 

4  EITEL,  Hand-book  of  Chinese  Buddhism  (pp.  76,  123,  197);  F.  W.  K.  MILLER, 
Ikkaku  sennin  (1.  c.,  p.  530);  and  H.  KERN,  Manual  of  Indian  Buddhism  (pp.  61  and 
62,  note  i). 

*  G.  SANDBERG  (Tibet  and  the  Tibetans,  p.  297),  who  is  ignorant  of  the  fact  that 
bse  or  bse-ru  means  "rhinoceros,"  and  who  merely  carries  the  modern  popular  meaning 
of  the  word,  "antelope,"  into  the  sphere  of  literature,  makes  Milaraspa  say  that  he  is 
"lonely  as  a  seru"  (antelope).    The  antelope,  however,  is  not  a  lonely,  but  a  highly 
social  animal  living  in  herds.    Nowhere  in  Buddhist  literature  has  bse-ru  the  signifi- 
cance of '  'antelope,    but  only  that  of '  'rhinoceros. ' '  The  Tibetan  poet,  who  in  every  line 
is  imbued  with  the  language  and  spirit  of  India,  most  obviously  intends  with  this 
simile  a  literary  allusion  to  the  Buddhist  comparison  of  the  Pratyeka-Buddha  with 
the  rhinoceros. 

*  Copied  by  me  from  the  manuscript  deposited  by  HIRTH  in  the  Royal  Library  of 
Berlin.    Regarding  the  work  see  HIRTH  (/.  China  Branch  R.  As.  Soc.,  Vol.  XXII, 
1888,  pp.  207  et  seq.),  and  Bull.  Ecole  franf aise,  IQI2,  p.  199. 


u8  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

animal.  We  know  that  the  primeval  habitat  of  the  Tibetan  stock  was 
located  along  the  upper  course  of  the  Huang-ho  (where  Ptolemy  knows 
them  as  Bautai,  derived  from  the  native  name  Bod,  "Tibetans;"  the 
Yellow  River  is  styled  by  him  Bautisos) ,  as  well  as  along  the  upper  Yang- 
tse.  There  they  lived  in  close  proximity  to  the  ancient  Chinese;  and 
in  that  locality,  as  will  be  established  from  Chinese  records,  the  rhi- 
noceros was  their  contemporary.  Large  parts  of  the  present  Chinese 
provinces  of  Kan-su  and  Sze-ch'uan  are  still  settled  by  Tibetan  tribes; 
and  we  shall  see  that  the  rhinoceros  occurred  there  in  the  times  of 
antiquity,  and  long  survived,  even  down  to  the  middle  ages.  The  Pai- 
lan  —  a  tribe  belonging  to  the  Tibetan  group  of  the  K'iang,  and  border- 
ing in  the  north-east  on  the  Tu-yu-hun —  in  561  A.D.  sent  an  embassy 
to  China  to  present  a  cuirass  of  rhinoceros-hide  (5*  kid)  and  iron  armor. 1 
Whether  they  had  made  this  cuirass  themselves,  or  had  received  it 
from  an  outside  source  (this  fact  is  not  indicated),  this  tribute,  at  any 
rate,  shows  that  they  were  acquainted  with  this  material  and  its  manu- 
factures.2 The  Ptn  ts'ao  yen  i  of  1116  extols  the  horns  of  the  Tibetan 
breed  of  rhinoceros  for  the  fine  quality  of  the  natural  designs  displayed 
in  them  (see  p.  148).  Li  Shi-ch6n,in  his  Pen  ts'ao  kang  mu  (see  p.  149), 
expressly  names  as  habitats  of  the  rhinoceros  the  regions  of  the  Si  Fan 
and  Nan  Fan;  that  is,  the  western  and  southern  Tibetans, — the  former 
scattered  over  Sze-ch'uan  and  Yun-nan  with  their  borderlands,  the 
latter  peopling  the  valley  of  the  Tsang-po  (Brahmaputra)  and  the 
Himalayan  tracts  adjoining  India.  Indeed,  down  to  the  middle  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  or  even  later,  the  rhinoceros  was  to  be  met  with 
along  the  foot  of  the  Himalaya  as  far  west  as  Rohilkund  and  Nepal;  and 
it  survived  longer  still  in  the  Terai  of  Sikkim.4  J.  CH.  WHITE  4  notes  the 

1  Chou  shu,  Ch.  49,  p.  5  b. 

1  In  the  year  824  the  Tibetans  offered  to  the  Chinese  Court  silver-cast  figures  of 
a  rhinoceros  and  a  stag  (T'ang  shu,  Ch.  216  B,  p.  6  b).  BUSHELL  (The  Early  History  of 
Tibet,  p.  88)  translates  the  word  si  in  this  passage  by  "yak,"  but  this  point  of  view 
is  not  admissible.  True  it  is  that  some  modern  Chinese  writers  on  Tibet  call  the  yak 
si  niu,  but  this  usage  of  the  word  is  not  earlier  than  the  eighteenth  century.  The 
T'ang  Annals,  however,  persistently  designate  the  Tibetan  yak  by  the  word  li  niu 
(No.  6938) ;  and  in  the  very  passage  alluded  to,  the  gift  of  the  rhinoceros  and  stag 
silver  figures  is  immediately  followed  by  the  words,  "and  they  brought  as  tribute  a 
yak"  (kung  li  niu),  which  BUSHELL  correctly  interprets  likewise  as  yak.  The  words 
si  and  li  niu  in  the  same  sentence  cannot  possibly  refer  to  the  same  animal;  and  it 
becomes  evident  from  a  consideration  of  all  Chinese  sources  concerned  that  down  to 
the  end  of  the  Ming  dynasty  the  Chinese  word  si  with  reference  to  Tibet  and  Tibetan 
tribes  invariably  denotes  the  rhinoceros,  and  nothing  else.  Rhinoceros-horn  was 
formerly  included  among  the  tribute  gifts  which  the  Dalai  Lamas  of  Tibet  were 
obliged  to  send  to  China;  it  took  its  place  between  coral,  genuine  pearls,  precious 
stones,  amber,  etc.  (Wei  Tsang  t'u  chi,  1792,  Ch.  A,  p.  17). 

•  R.  LYDEKKER,  The  Game  Animals  of  India,  p.  30. 
4  Sikhim  and  Bhutan,  p.  322  (London,  1909). 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  119 

rhinoceros  in  a  few  of  the  lower  valleys  of  Bhutan,  though  not  common. 
In  Tibet  proper,  the  animal  does  not  occur  at  present,  but  fossil  remains 
of  it  were  discovered  at  high  elevations  by  Sir  R.  Strachey  near  the  source 
of  the  Tsang-po.1  The  early  Tibetan  translators,  when  they  correctly 
rendered  the  Sanskrit  word  ganda  by  bse,  must  have  entertained  an  exact 
notion  or  reminiscence  of  the  rhinoceros;  but  the  animal,  as  every- 
where, became  rapidly  exterminated  in  those  territories  where  Tibetans 
had  occasion  to  behold  and  to  hunt  it,  while  the  inhabitants  of  Central 
Tibet  seldom  or  never  had  this  opportunity.  For  this  reason,  also  in 
Tibet,  the  rhinoceros  underwent  the  process  of  fabulous  "unicorniza- 
tion."  Reports  of  a  Tibetan  unicorn  greatly  stirred  the  imagination  of 
European  explorers,  and  gave  rise  to  wild  speculations.  Captain  S. 
TURNER,2  I  believe,  was  the  first  to  circulate  such  a  report,  being  in- 
formed by  the  Raja  of  Bhutan  that  he  was  in  possession  of  a  unicorn, 
a  sort  of  horse,  with  a  horn  growing  from  the  middle  of  its  forehead; 
it  was  kept  at  some  distance  from  Tassisudon,  the  capital,  and  the 
people  paid  it  religious  respect,  but  Turner  had  no  occasion  to  see  it. 
The  Lazarist  fathers  Hue  and  Gabet,  who  reached  Lhasa  in  1846,  are 
said  to  have  even  claimed  the  discovery  in  Tibet  of  the  unicorn  of 
Scripture.  Major  Latter,  in  the  first  part  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
was  very  sanguine  of  being  able  to  find  a  veritable  unicorn  in  the  interior 
of  Tibet:  he  was  advised  by  a  native  that  he  had  often  seen  these  an- 
imals, which  "were  fierce  and  exceedingly  wild  and  seldom  taken  alive, 
but  frequently  shot;"  and  that  they  are  commonly  met  with  on  the 
borders  of  the  great  desert,  about  a  mile  from  Lhasa.  From  a  drawing 
which  accompanied  Major  Latter's  communication,  the  presumed 
unicorn  was  something  like  a  horse,  but  with  cloven  hoofs,  a  long, 
curved  horn  growing  out  of  the  forehead,  and  a  boar-shaped  tail.  Un- 
der the  heading  "Unicorns  in  Asia,"8  a  writer  revived  the  opinion  of 
the  existence  of  veritable  unicorns,  such  as  were  reported  to  Major 
Latter:  the  animal  in  question  was  of  the  deer  kind,  having  a  single  horn 
at  the  top  of  the  head;  it  was  known  by  the  name  of  the  Seru. 4  Then 

1  A.  R.  WALLACE  (The  Geographical  Distribution  of  Animals,  Vol.  II,  p.  214; 
also  Vol.  I,  p.  122)  refers  to  this  in  the  words  that  more  than  twenty  species  of  extinct 
rhinoceroses  are  known,  and  that  one  has  even  been  found  at  an  altitude  of  16,000 
feet  in  Tibet.  Mr.  L.  A.  WADDELL  (Lhasa  and  its  Mysteries,  p.  315)  has  this  sugges- 
tive remark:  "The  dense  rank  growth  of  wildflowers  and  weeds  along  the  borders  of 
the  fields  was  such  as  to  make  this  part  of  the  Tsang-po  oasis  a  quite  suitable  habitat 
for  the  rhinoceros,  and  to  bring  the  discovery  of  the  fossil  remains  of  that  animal  by 
Sir  R.  Strachey  near  the  source  of  this  river  into  harmony  with  present-day  facts.  ' 

*  An  Account  of  an  Embassy  to  the  Court  of  the  Teshoo  Lama,  p.  157  (London, 
1800). 

1  Asiatic  Journal,  Vol.  II,  1830. 

*  Compare  W.  HAUGHTON,  On  the  Unicorn  of  the  Ancients  (Annals  and  Magazine 
of  Nat.  Hist.,  Vol.  IX,  1862,  pp.  368,  369). 


120  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

the  famous  J.  D.  HOOKER  x  took  the  matter  in  hand,  and  published  a 
sketch  of  the  Chiru  Antelope  with  the  addition  "unicorn  of  Tibet,"  a 
name  which  he  thought  was  suggested  by  the  animal  when  viewed  in 
profile.  It  is  identified  as  Antilope  or  Paniholops  Hodgsoni,  having  been 
described  by  HODGSON.2  It  remains  a  mysterious  creature,  and  little 
is  known  about  it.3  P.  LANDON*  denies  that  this  antelope,  as  pointed 
out  by  Hooker,  occurs  near  the  Cholamu  Lake  at  the  present  day. 
L.  A.  WADDELL5  reports  under  Chiru,  "None  were  seen  and  the  people 
did  not  appear  to  know  of  any." 

In  Anglo-Indian  nomenclature  we  now  find  two  words  in  use,  chiru 
and  seru,  the  latter  also  Anglicized  as  serow,  on  which  YULE,  in  his 
"  Hobson-Jobson, "  unfortunately  has  not  commented.  Serow  has  be- 
come a  household  stock-word  of  the  Anglo-Indian  sportsman  to  denote 
a  large  variety  of  different  Indian,  Burmese,  and  Tibetan  antelopes.6 
G.  SANDBERG'  recognizes  in  it  the  Tibetan  word  bse-ru,  and  identifies 
the  latter  with  the  species  Nemorhaedus  bubalinus.  JASCHKES  says 
under  bse  or  bse-ru,  "Unicorn,  'tchiru,'  an  antelope,  probably  the  same 
as  gtsod,"  with  reference  to  Hooker.  CHANDRA  DAS,S  who  has  fully 


1  Himalayan  Journals,  2d  ed.,  p.  401  (London,  1893). 

2  Journal  As.  Soc.  Bengal,  1846,  p.  338. 

8  N.  KUEHNER,  Description  of  Tibet,  in  Russian  (Vol.  I,  pt.  2,  p.  157;  and  notes 
P-  77). 

4  Lhasa,  Vol.  I,  p.  393. 

8  Lhasa  and  its  Mysteries,  p.  483. 

6  R.  LYDEKKER,  The  Game  Animals  of  India,  pp.  139  el  seq.    M.  DAUVERGNE 
(Bull.  Musee  d'hist.  nat.  de  Parts,  Vol.  IV,  1898,  p.  219)  describes  the  animal  as 
follows:     "Serow;  Ramu  de  Kashmir,  ou  chevre-antilope,  Nemorhaedus  bubalinus 
Hodgs.    Habite  les  rochers  escarpe's  et  broussailleux  des  montagnes,  a  une  hauteur 
de  3,000  metres,  dans  1'Himalaya  et  Kashmir.    Tres  difficile  a  chasser,  il  tient  te"te 
aux  chiens,  qu'il  fait  rouler  dans  les  precipices.     C'est  ge'ne'ralement  1'hiver  qu'on 
le  chasse,  car  alors  il  se  de"tache  sur  la  neige,  grace  a  la  teinte  noire  de  sa  robe,  et 
comme  il  est  tres  lourd,  il  s'effondre  et  se  fait  prendre  par  les  chiens." 

7  Tibet  and  the  Tibetans,  p.  297.    On  p.  298  he  points  out  that  the  word  chiru 
should  be  written  gcig  ru  ("one  horn").    This  derivation  is  impossible,  as  "one  horn" 
can  be  in  Tibetan  only  ru  (or  rva)  gcig,  or  ru  &ig.    The  name  Ekagringa  is  rendered  in- 
to Tibetan  Rva  gcig-pa.  (Compare  also  Hor  c'os  byun,  ed.  HUTH,  p.  16,  1. 14.)    Chiru 
is  simply  a  local  or  dialectic  variation  of  se-ru.    Strange  words  exert  a  singular  fascina- 
tion upon  the  human  mind.    The  Anglo-Indian  chiru  has  had  several  good  fortunes. 
Thanks  to  the  imaginative  powers  of  G.  SCHLEGEL  (Uranographie  chinoise,  p.  587), 
it  has  found  cheerful  hospitality  in  Chinese  astronomy,  the  Chinese  animal  hiai 
being  wrongly  identified  with  it.    A  few  years  ago  the  chiru  was  deemed  worthy  of 
the  honor  of  being  admitted  into  the  sanctum  of  classical  philology.     O.  KELLER 
(Die  antike  Tierwelt,  Vol.  I,  p.  293)  identifies  the  Indian  Oryx  mentioned  by  Aelian, 
and  the  Oryx  on  the  Hydaspes  mentioned  by  Timotheus,  with  the  Tibetan  chiru, —  a 
venture  which  has  no  foundation;  in  fact,  the  oryx  of  Aelian  is  located  in  India,  and 
corresponds  to  the  Indian  black-buck. 

8  Tibetan-English  Dictionary,  p.  593.    Skr.  khatfga  rendered  by  JASCHKE  "a  cer- 
tain animal"  is  the  rhinoceros. 

9  Tibetan-English  Dictionary,  p.  1319. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  121 

recognized  the  original  meaning  of  bse-ru  as  "rhinoceros,"  proceeds  to 
state  that  in  Tibet  the  word  is  applied  to  the  clumsy-looking  deer  known 
to  sportsmen  as  the  "serow."  Both  lexicographers,  in  this  respect, 
rely  on  the  statements  of  the  European  sportsmen,  but  leave  us  in  the 
dark  as  to  the  opinion  of  the  Tibetans  on  the  point.  The  question  arises, 
—  Do  those  European  speculations  on  a  Tibetan  unicorn  identified 
with  an  antelope  styled  se-ru  have  any  foundation  in  a  Tibetan  tradi- 
tion? The  French  Missionaries,  in  their  Tibetan  Dictionary  (p.  1056), 
give  a  slight  intimation  of  the  existence  of  such  a  tradition  by  remarking 
that  the  animal  bse-ru  is  believed  in  Tibet  to  belong  to  the  genus  of 
goats  (ex  genere  caprarum),  but  that  nobody  has  ever  seen  it;  the  latter 
clause  doubtless  means  that  nobody  has  encountered  this  wild  goat  in 
the  shape  of  a  unicorn  which  it  is  fabled  to  be.  I.  J.  SCHMIDT  l  had  a 
certain  presentiment  of  the  matter  when  he  annotated  a  passage  in  his 
translation  of  the  Geser  Saga,  that  the  Tibetan  and  Mongol  name  of 
the  unicorn  is  seru,  that  the  existence  of  this  animal  in  the  wild  moun- 
tains of  Tibet  is  asserted  in  Tibetan  books,  but  that  the  description 
given  of  it  does  not  at  all  fit  the  rhinoceros.  The  unicorn  which  stopped 
Chinggis  Khan  on  his  expedition  to  Tibet  and  induced  him  to  return,2 
judging  from  the  description  given  by  the  Tibetan  historian,  *  is  identical 
with  the  Chinese  k'i-lin,  as  already  recognized  by  G.  ScHLEGEL.4 
Another  association  of  the  unicorn  with  Tibet  appears  on  the  tribute 
painting  ascribed  to  Li  Kung-lin  (Li  Lung-mien),  where  BONINB  has 
pointed  it  out  among  the  envoys  from  the  Kingdom  of  Women.  In  the 
Polyglot  Dictionary  of  the  Emperor  K'ien-lung8  we  find  the  Tibetan 


1  Die  Thaten  Bogda  Gesser  Chan's,  p.  56  (St.  Petersburg,  1839).  Compare  also 
P-  125. 

1  G.  HUTH,  Geschichte  des  Buddhismus  in  der  Mongolei,  Vol.  II,  p.  25. 

1  "An  animal  of  green  color  with  the  body  of  a  stag,  the  tail  of  a  horse,  and  a 
single  horn  on  its  head." 

4  T'oung  Poo,  Vol.  VI,  1896,  p.  433.  According  to  Chinese  tradition,  however 
(see  the  texts  of  Kui  sin  tsa  chi  and  Ch'o  keng  lu,  in  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'tng,  Chapter  kio 
tuan,  ki  ski,  p.  i  b),  the  marvellous  animal  opposing  the  conqueror  belonged  to  the 
class  of  unicorns  (kio  tuan),  and  is  described^ as  a  hundred  feet  high,  with  a  single 
horn  like  that  of  the  rhinoceros,  and  able  to  speak  a  human  language. 

6  Le  rpyaume  des  neiges,  pp.  40,  299  (Paris,  1911).  M.  Benin's  description  of 
this  painting  is  based  on  a  copy  of  it  in  the  Mus6e  Guimet,  which  is  certainly  not  the 
original  from  the  hand  of  Li  Kung-lin;  it  is  a  much  later  and  somewhat  weak  copy,  as 
stated  also  by  TCHANG  Yi-Tcnou  and  HACKIN  (La  peinture  chinoise  au  Musee  Gui- 
met, p.  59).  On  Plate  V  of  the  latter  publication,  the  portion  of  the  picture  illustrat- 
ing the  envoys  of  the  Kingdom  of  Women  is  reproduced;  the  unicorn  is  a  wretched 
production.  Mr.  Freer  of  Detroit  owns  two  copies  of  the  same  painting,  both  far 
superior  to  the  one  in  the  Muse"e  Guimet.  One  or  these  offers  3uch  high  qualities  as 
come  very  near  to  an  original.  The  other  is  a  copy  of  the  Yuan  period,  executed  in 
1364. 

•  Appendix,  Ch.  4,  p.  53. 


122 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


FIG.  14. 
Se-ru  as  Emblem  of  Long  Life  (from  Tibetan  Wood-engraving). 

word  bse-ru  rendered  by  Chinese  shen  yang  ("divine  goat");1  and  this 
is  thus  far  the  only  literary  indication  which  I  am  able  to  trace  in 
regard  to  a  Tibetan  unicorn  of  goat-like  character.2 

Such  a  bse-ru  is  represented  on  a  Tibetan  woodcut  as  an  emblem  of 
long  life  (bse-ru  ts'e  rin;  Fig.  14).     The  picture,  of  which  it  forms  a 


1  The  Manchu  has  the  artificial  formation  Sengkitu,  and  three  other  words 
besides, —  sacintu,  tontu,  and  tubitu  (see  SACHAROV,  Manchu-Russian  Dictionary, 
P-  734) » — f°r  the  designation  of  this  unicorn.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  term 
shin  yang  occurs  in  Hou  Han  shu  in  defining  the  unicorn  hiai  chat  (p.  115,  note  2). 

1  The  Mongols  have  adopted  seru  as  a  loan-word  from  Tibetan  in  the  sense  of 
"rhinoceros,"  as  stated  by  KOVALEVSKI  and  GOLSTUNSKI  in  their  Mongol  dictionaries; 
but  they  take  the  word  also  in  the  sense  of  a  "deer,"  as  shown  by  the  Mongol  transla- 
tion of  the  Tibetan  medical  work  translated  into  Russian  by  A.  PQZDNAYEV  (Vol.  I, 
p.  288).  The  Mongol  equivalent  of  Tibetan  bse-ru  and  Chinese  si  kio  is  here  bodi 
guriigasiin  ("the  animal  of  the  bodhi,"  Sanskrit  bodhimriga);  that  is,  the  gazelle. 
Besides,  the  Mongols  have  a  seemingly  indigenous  word  for  "rhinoceros,"  —  kiris, 
keris,  or  kers-un  dbar. 


HISTORY  or  THE  RHINOCEROS  123 

part,  is  known  as  "the  six  subjects  of  long  life"  (ts'e  rin  drug  skor). 
These  are, —  the  Buddha  Amitayus  (the  Buddha  of  Endless  Life) ,  the 
long-lived  wishing- tree  (dpag  bsam  Sin  ts'e  rin)  figured  as  a  peach-tree 
in  Chinese  style,  the  long-lived  rocks  (brag  ts'e  rin),  the  Chinese  God 
of  Longevity  Shou-sing  (in  Tibetan  Mi  ts'e  rin)  seated  on  a  mat  and 
holding  a  rosary,  a  pair  of  cranes  (krun  krun  ts'e  rin)  pecking  at  some 
peaches  (k'am-bu)  that  are  planted  in  a  jar,  and  a  pair  of  bse-ru.  Though 
apparently  inspired  by  the  deer,  which  is  the  emblem  of  the  Chinese 
God  of  Longevity,  their  outlines  considerably  differ  from  the  latter,  and 
approach  the  Tibetan  notion  of  the  appearance  of  a'bse-ru; l  but,  curiously 
enough,  they  are  without  any  horns.  There  can  be  little  doubt,  ac- 
cordingly, that  in  recent  times,  when  the  rhinoceros  had  almost  vanished 
from  the  memory  of  the  Tibetan  people,  the  word  bse-ru  was  transferred 
to  a  species  of  deer  or  antelope;  and,  as  the  ancient  tradition  of  the  bse-ru 
being  a  single-horned  animal  had  persisted  through  the  centuries,  the 
single  horn,  in  popular  imagination,  was  fixed  on  the  antelope.  When 
we  inquire  why  it  was  just  the  antelope,  and  not  any  other  animal  on 
which  the  idea  of  a  unicorn  was  projected,  the  story  of  Ekagringa  pre- 
sents itself  again  as  the  happiest  solution.  We  know  that  this  legend,  in  a 
Tibetan  translation,  has  been  incorporated  in  the  Kanjur;  and  A. 
SCHIEFNER  2  has  translated  it  from  this  version.  It  is  likewise  extant 
in  Kshemendra's  Avadanakalpalata,  of  which  a  literal  versified  rendering, 
and  an  abridged  prose  edition  made  for  children  by  order  of  the  Fifth 
Dalai  Lama,  exist  in  the  Tibetan  language.  This  plain  version  has  ren- 
dered the  story  immensely  popular  among  Tibetans;  and,  as  pointed  out, 
it  is  current  also  in  a  dramatized  form.  The  Tibetan  mask  of  Ekasringa 
(Plate  X)  is  equipped  with  an  unmistakable  antelope-horn.3  The 
psychological  process  is  therefore  quite  clear.  The  rhinoceros  was  grad- 

1  My  explanation  is  based  on  the  interpretation  of  this  woodcut  given  me  by  an 
intelligent  Lama.  A.  GRfJNWEDEL,  in  his  Russian  Description  of  the  Lamaist  Collec- 
tion of  Prince  Uchtomski  (Bill.  Buddhica,  No.  6,  p.  26),  has  figured  a  similar  woodcut, 
but  without  explanation.  The  God  of  Longevity  bears  the  Mongol  legend  Tsaghan 
Abughdn  ("The  White  Old  Man"),  who  is  certainly,  as  stated  on  p.  117,  a  national 
Mongol  deity;  but  from  an  iconographic  point  of  view,  as  he  appears  in  Grunwedel's 
drawing,  he  is  nothing  but  a  copy  of  the  well-known  Chinese  God  of  Longevity. 

1  In  RALSTON,  Tibetan  Tales,  p.  253. 

*  On  the  lid  of  a  Tibetan  censer  in  the  Field  Museum  (Cat.  No.  122,522)  are 
represented  the  full  figures  of  two  gazelles  opposite  and  turned  away  from  each  other 
(the  wheel  of  the  law  being  placed  between  them),  the  well-known  Buddhist  motive 
symbolizing  Buddha's  first  sermon  in  the  Deer-Park  (GRttNWEDEL,  Buddhist  Art  in 
India,  p.  143).  One  of  these  is  provided  with  a  single  horn  on  its  forehead ;  the  other, 
apparently  conceived  as  the  doe,  is  hornless.  The  former  seems  suggested  again  by 
a  reminiscence  of  Ekacringa,  but  it  is  not  known  to  me  whether  the  Tibetans  would 
name  it  bse-ru.  Other  Tibetan  censers  are  surmounted  by  a  monster  of  Chinese 
style,  showing  a  horn  on  its  nose  and  another  on  its  forehead, —  manifestly  derived 
from  the  two-horned  rhinoceros. 


124  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

ually  forgotten  by  the  people,  the  word  bse  or  bse-ru  of  this  meaning 
continued  in  literature;  the  people  retained  the  recollection  of  its  being 
a  single-horned  animal,  and  in  their  attempts  at  finding  this  creature, 
the  legend  of  Hermit  Single-Horn,  the  son  of  an  antelope  or  gazelle, 
flashed  into  their  minds ;  so  that  the  unicorn  bse-ru  was  finally  identified 
with  a  species  of  antelope  named  for  this  reason  bse-ru.  This  unicorn 
bse-ru  we  now  recognize  also  in  the  Chinese  drawing  of  Cheng  lei  pen 
ts'ao  (Fig.  13).  Since  the  proof  is  now  established  that  the  interaction 
and  intermingling  of  deer  and  rhinoceros  have  taken  place  in  China,  in 
Tibet,  and  in  the  West  with  the  first  conspicuous  allusion  in  the  Cy- 
ranides,1  and  that  this  process  of  adjustment  and  affiliation  has  radiated 
from  the  Indian  legend  of  Single-Horn  born  from  a  gazelle,  we  are  justi- 
fied in  concluding  that  the  foundation,  or  at  least  the  commencement,  of 
this  transformation,  must  have  arisen  in  India.  The  development  of  the 
matter  in  Tibet  shows  sufficiently  that  Ekacriiiga  is  disguised  also 
under  our  Chinese  illustration.  So  much  about  the  latter. 

A  most  interesting  psychological  parallel  to  the  representations  of 
the  rhinoceros  in  China  is  formed  by  the  ostrich.  We  now  know  from 
the  reproductions  of  CHAVANNEs2  that  in  the  T'ang  period  the  ostrich 
was  chiselled  in  stone  in  a  very  naturalistic  manner  on  the  imperial 
burial-places  (Fig.  is).3 

1  A  counterpart  of  the  rhinoceros  of  cervine  character  occurs  also  among  the 
Arabs.  In  Ethiopic,  the  word  charish  corresponds  to  the  monokeros  of  the  Septuaginta 
(JOB,  xxxix,  9) ,  and  in  all  probability  signifies  the  "rhinoceros. ' '  According  to  Qazwlnl, 
charish  is  an  animal  of  the  size  of  a  ram,  of  great  strength  and  swiftness,  with  a  single 
horn  on  its  forehead  like  the  horn  of  the  rhinoceros  (karkadan).  Some  Arabic  lexicog- 
raphers even  take  it  for  a  marine  animal,  others  identify  it  directly  with  the  rhinoce- 
ros. HOMMEL  (Die  Namen  der  Saugetiere  bei  den  sudsemitischen  Volkern,  p.  333, 
Leipzig,  1879),  to  whom  this  information  is  due,  regards  the  Arabic  word  as  a  loan 
from  Ethiopic.  DamM,  in  his  Lexicon  of  Animals,  avails  himself  of  this  word  in  trans- 
lating the  text  of  the  Physiologus  regarding  the  unicorn  (K.  AHRENS,  Das  Buch  der 
Naturgegenstande,  p.  43).  What  escaped  Hommel  is  the  fact  that  Cosmas  Indico- 
pleustes  (McCRiNDLE,  Ancient  India  as  described  in  Class.  Lit.,  p.  157)  states  that  the 
Ethiopians,  in  their  language,  call  the  rhinoceros  arou  or  harisi.  G.  JACOB  (Studien 
in  arabischen  Geographen  IV,  p.  166,  Berlin,  1892)  holds  that  Qazwlnl  is  the  only 
Arabic  author  to  discriminate  between  charish  and  the  rhinoceros,  and  identifies  the 
former  with  the  Saiga-antelope  of  southern  Russia.  The  rendering  "unicorn"  by 
the  Seventy  and  the  English  Bible  is  erroneous.  The  Hebrew  word,  thus  translated, 
is  reem,  corresponding  to  Assyrian  rtmu.  It  is  now  generally  interpreted  as  a  wild 
buffalo,  and  on  the  basis  of  Assyrian  monuments  is  ingeniously  identified  with  Bos 
primigenius  by  J.  U.  DURST  (Die  Kinder  von  Babylonien,  pp.  8-n,  Berlin,  1899). 
The  animal,  called  in  Hebrew  behemoth  (Jos,  XL,  15-24),  and  formerly  taken  for  the 
rhinoceros  (p.  83),  is  the  hippopotamus  of  the  Nile.  The  Bible  does  not  mention  the 
rhinoceros  or  the  unicorn. 

*  Mission  archeologique,  Nos.  458,  459,  472,  481. 

*  These  ostriches  belong  to  the  very  best  ever  executed  in  the  history  of  art.  They 
are  much  superior  to  any  representations  of  the  bird  by  the  Egyptians  (O.  KELLER, 
Die  antike  Tierwelt,  Vol.  II,  p.  170),  the  Assyrians  (P.  S.  P.  HANDCOCK,  Mesopotami- 
an  Archaeology,  p.  307),  and  the  classical  nations  (!MHOOF-BLUMER  and  O.  KELLER, 
Tier-  und  Pflanzenbilder  auf  Munzen  und  Gemmen,  Plates  V,  52;  XXII,  33-36). 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS 


125 


It  was  the  great  general  and  explorer  Chang  K'ien,  the  first  modern 
Chinese,  who  during  his  peregrinations  to  the  west,  among  many  other 
novel  things,  discovered  also  the  ostrich  for  his  compatriots.  After  he 
had  negotiated  his  treaties  with  the  countries  of  the  west,  the  King  of 
Parthia  (An-si)  sent  an  embassy  to  the  Chinese  Court  and  presented 
large  bird's  eggs,1  which  most  probably  were  ostrich  eggs.  A  live 


FIG.  15. 
Ostrich  sculptured  in  Stone,  T'ang  Period  (Sketch  after  Chavannes,  Mission,  No.  472). 

specimen  (or  specimens)  of  the  "large  bird  of  T'iao-chi"  was  despatched 
as  tribute  from  the  same  country  in  101  A.D.,  and  termed  in  China 
"Parthian  bird."2 


They  are  not  made  after  any  western  artistic  models,  but  constitute  invincible  proof 
for  the  fact  that  the  Chinese  artists  in  the  T'ang  era  observed  and  studied  nature,  and 
worked  after  natural  models.  This  case  may  be  recommended  for  due  considera- 
tion to  the  adherents  of  the  preconceived  dogma  that  all  Chinese  art  is  copied  from 
that  of  the  west,  and  that  no  art  is  possible  outside  of  the  sanctum  of  classical  art. 

1  Shi  ki,  Ch.  123,  p.  6;  HIRTH,  China  and  the  Roman  Orient,  p.  169.  FORKE 
(Mitteilungen  des  Seminars,  Vol.  VII,  1904,  p.  139)  wrongly  says  that  the  Shi  ki 
mentions  "large  birds  (ostriches)  with  eggs  as  large  as  earthen  pots  as  a  peculiar 
feature  of  T'iao-chi;"  this  is  not  in  the  text  of  the  Shi  ki,  which  speaks  only  of  large 
bird's  eggs,  but  it  is  found  in  Ts'ien  Han  shu  (Ch.  96  A,  p.  6  a).  The  trade  in  ostrich 
eggs  in  the  west  is  of  very  ancient  date  (O.  KELLER,  /.  c.,  p.  168). 

1  Hou  Han  shu,  Ch.  118,  p.  9;  CHAVANNES,  T'oung  Poo,  1907,  p.  178.  M.  CHA- 
VANNES advances  the  theory  that  the  Chinese  erroneously  applied  to  the  ostrich  the 


126  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

It  was  styled  also  "great  horse  bird."1  Its  resemblance  to  the 
camel  was  emphasized,  and  hence  the  name  "camel-bird"  was  formed. 
Living  ostriches  were  sent  to  China  again  in  the  T'ang  period.  In 
650  Tokhara  offered  large  birds  seven  feet  high,  of  black  color,  with  feet 
resembling  those  of  the  camel,  marching  with  outspread  wings,  able  to 
run  three  hundred  li  a  day,  and  to  swallow  iron;  they  were  styled  camel- 
birds.2  The  T'ang  artists,  accordingly,  were  in  a  position  to  witness 
and  to  study  live  specimens  of  the  bird;  and  the  fact  that  they  really 
did  so  leaks  out  in  the  realistic  high-relief  carvings  referred  to  above. 
But  what  do  we  find  among  the  latter-day  draughtsmen  who  en- 
deavored to  illustrate  the  creature  for  books? 

Fig.  1 6  shows  the  woodcut  with  which  the  P&n  ts'ao  kang  mu  of 
Li  Shi-che'n  is  adorned.  BRETSCHNEIDER  (I.  c.) ,  in  a  somewhat  generous 
spirit,  designated  it  as  "a  rude,  but  tolerably  exact  drawing  of  the 
camel-bird."  FORKE  3  holds  that  this  ostrich  is  pictured  like  a  big  goose, 
but  with  the  feet  of  a  mammal;  and  he  comes  far  nearer  to  the  truth. 
Li  Shi-che'n,  born  in  K'i  chou  in  the  province  of  Hu-pei,  spent  his  life- 


name  "bird  of  Parthia"  (An-si,  Arsak),  but  that  in  fact  these  birds  originated  from 
T'iap-chi,  that  is,  Desht  Misan  or  Mesene,  where  ruled  Arabic  princes  who  had  all 
facilities  for  obtaining  ostriches  from  Arabia.  This  theory  does  not  seem  necessary 
to  me.  As  already  observed  by  BRETSCHNEIDER  (Notes  and  Queries,  Vol.  IV,  p.  53; 
and  Mediaeval  Researches,  Vol.  I,  pp.  144-145),  the  ostrich  is  described  in  Wei  shu 
as  a  bird  indigenous  to  Persia  (compare  also  Sui  shu,  Ch.  83,  p-.  7  b;  Pei  shi,  Ch.  97, 
p.  8),  and  is  again  mentioned  in  the  T'ang  Annals  as  a  Persian  bird;  there  is,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  testimony  of  the  Persian  authors  and  of  Xenophon  (Anabasis,  i,  5), 
who  saw  the  bird  on  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates;  and  up  to  the  present  time,  ostriches 
are  met  with,  though  not  frequently,  in  western  Asia.  HANDCOCK  (/.  c.,  p.  25)  ob- 
serves that  the  ostrich  appears  in  Mesopotamian  art  at  a  late  period,  though  in  Elam 
rows  of  ostriches  are  found  depicte4  on  early  pottery,  closely  and  inexplicably  re- 
sembling the  familiar  ostriches  on  the  pre-^dynastic  pottery  of  ancient  Egypt;  it 
sometimes,  however,  assumes  a  conspicuous  position  in  the  embroidery  of  an  Assyrian 
king's  robe,  and  is  found  also  on  a  chalcedony  seal  in  Paris.  Further  references  to 
Assyrian  representations  are  given  by  O.  KELLER  (/.  c.,  pp.  172,  594).  In  ancient 
Syria,  the  ostrich  is  well  attested  by  the  interesting  description  in  JOB  (xxxix,  13-18), 
—  Moses  prohibited  the  flesh  of  the  bird  as  unclean  food, —  and  by  reliefs  at  Hiera- 
polis  of  Roman  times.  It  further  occurs  in  the  Syrian  version  of  the  Physiologus. 
BREHM  (Tierleben,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  692)  sums  up,  "In  Asia,  the  area  of  the  habitat  of 
the  ostrich  may  formerly  have  been  much  more  extended  than  at  present;  but  even 
now,  as  established  by  Hartlaub  with  as  much  diligence  as  erudition,  it  occurs  in  the 
deserts  of  the  Euphrates  region,  especially  the  Bassida  and  Dekhena,  in  all  suitable 
localities  of  Arabia,  and  finally  in  some  parts  of  southern  Persia.  Vamb6ry  even  learned 
that  it  is  still  sometimes  found  on  the  lower  course  of  the  Oxus,  in  the  region  of 
Kungrad  (?),  and  is  named  there  camel  or  coffer  bird."  Also  in  the  Encyclopaedia 
Britannica  (Vol.  XX,  p.  362)  it  is  said,  "It  is  probable  that  it  still  lingers  in  the 
wastes  of  Kirwan  in  eastern  Persia,  whence  examples  may  occasionally  stray  north- 
ward to  those  of  Turkestan,  even  near  the  lower  Oxus." 

1  Ts'ien  Han  shu,  Ch.  96  A,  p.  6  b.  In  this  passage  the  bird  is  noticed  as  a  native 
of  Parthia,  and  commented  on  by  Yen  Shi-ku. 

*  CHAVANNES,  Documents,  p.  156.  In  the  period  K'ai-yuan  (713-741)  ostrich 
eggs  were  sent  from  Sogdiana  (ibid.,  p.  136). 

»  L.  c.,  p.  138. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS 


127 


time  as  magistrate  of  the  district  of  P'&ig-k'i  in  the  prefecture  of  T'ung- 
ch'uan,  province  of  Sze-ch'uan.  The  chances  are  that  he  had  never 
seen  the  sculptures  of  ostriches  in  the  mausolea  of  the  T'ang  emperors 
near  Li-ts'uan,  Shen-si  Province;  but,  be  this  as  it  may,  his  woodcut 
proves  that  the  T'ang  tradition  of  the  representation  of  the  ostrich  was 
wholly  unknown  to  him,  and  moreover,  that  he  himself  had  never  be- 
held an  ostrich.  We  have  no  records  to  the  effect  that  ostriches  were 
transported  to  China  during  the  Ming  period;  and  they  were  then 
probably  known  merely  by  name.  Li  Shi-che"n's 
production  is  simply  a  reconstruction  based  on 
the  definitions  of  the  texts  ("  marching  with 
outspread  wings,  feet  of  a  camel,"  etc.);  the 
only  exact  feature  is  the  two  toes,  which  are 
mentioned  also  in  the  older  descriptions  of  the 
bird;  everything  else,  notably  the  crane's  head, 
is  absurd,  and  a  naturalist  of  the  type  of 
Bretschneider  should  have  noticed  this. 

In  the  great  cyclopaedia  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'Gng, 
published  in  1726,  we  find  a  singular  illustration 
of  the  ostrich,  which  is  reproduced  in  Fig.  17  as 
an  object-lesson  in  Chinese  psychology.  This 
accomplishment  must  open  every  one's  eyes: 
here  we  plainly  see  that  the  illustrator  had  not 
the  slightest  idea  of  the  appearance  of  an  ostrich, 
but  merely  endeavored,  with  appalling  result,  to 
outline  a  sketch  of  what  he  imagined  the  "camel-bird"  should 
look  like.  He  created  a  combination  of  a  camel  and  a  bird  by 
illustrating  the  bare  words,  as  they  struck  his  ears,  without  any 
recourse  to  facts  and  logic;  he  committed  the  logical  blunder  (so 
common  among  the  Chinese  from  the  days  of  the  Sung  period)  of 
confounding  a  descriptive  point  of  similarity  with  a  feature  of  reality. 
All  Chinese  texts  are  agreed  on  the  point  that  the  bird  is  just  like  a 
camel,  or  conveys  that  impression.  This  case  is  most  instructive  in 
disclosing  the  working  of  the  minds  of  the  recent  Chinese  illustrators, 
and  in  exhibiting  the  value  due  to  their  productions.  It  would  not  do  in 
the  present  case  to  deny  that  this  figure  is  intended  for  an  ostrich,  to 
define  it  as  a  new  animal  species,  a  "bird-shaped  biped  camel "  (something 
like  an  Avi-camelus  bipes),  and  to  conclude  that  the  Chinese  term  t*o 
niao  does  not  denote  the  ostrich.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  to  con- 
clude that  illustrations  of  this  character  are  out  and  out  valueless  for 
our  scientific  purposes,  that  definitions  of  an  animal  cannot  be  deduced 
from  them,  but  that  all  reasoning  on  the  nature  of  the  respective  animal 


FIG.  16. 

Ostrich  (from  Ptn  ts'ao 
kang  mu). 


128 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


FIG.  17. 
Alleged  Ostrich  (from  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'ing). 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  129 

can  be  based  solely  on  the  texts.1  The  illustrations  are  posterior  in 
time  and  mere  accessories,  and,  even  if  fairly  sensible,  of  sheer  secondary 
importance;  in  each  and  every  case,  however,  if  utilized  as  the  basis 
for  any  far-reaching  conclusion,  their  history,  sources,  and  psychological 
foundation  must  be  carefully  examined.  Another  impressive  lesson  to 
be  derived  from  the  case  of  the  ostrich  is  that  China,  which  by  virtue 
of  a  widely  accepted  school  opinion  appears  to  us  as  the  classical  soil 
of  ultra-conservative  perseverance  of  traditions,  is  very  liable  also  to 
lose  traditions,  and  even  rather  good  ones.  The  excellent  ostrich 
representations  of  the  T'ang  have  not  been  perpetuated,  but  have  re- 
mained as  isolated  instances.  Indeed,  they  seem  to  have  remained 
unknown  to  Chinese  artists,  archaeologists,  and  naturalists,  and  hidden 
away  in  seclusion  and  oblivion  until  discovered  by  M.  Chavannes. 
It  is  this  very  China  unknown  to  the  Chinese,  which,  as  research  ad- 
vances, will  become  our  most  attractive  subject  of  study. 

We  referred  above  (p.  100)  to  the  fact  that  the  ancient  illustrations  to 
the  Erh  ya  are  lost,  and  that  Kuo-P'o's  sketches  of  the  rhinoceros  may 
have  been  nearer  to  the  truth.  In  now  raising  the  question  whether 
any  representations  of  the  animal  are  handed  down  in  the  ancient 
monuments  of  China,  we  naturally  remember  the  primeval  form  of 
writing  that  mirrors  the  stage  of  her  primitive  culture.  The  celebrated 
Catalogue  of  Bronzes,  the  Po  ku  t'u  lu,  published  by  Wang  Fu  in  the 
period  Ta-kuan  (1107-1111),  has  preserved  to  us  (Ch.  9,  p.  23)  two  an- 
cient symbols  which  are  veritable  representations  of  the  single-homed 
rhinoceros  se  (Fig.  18).  They  are  placed  on  the  ends  of  a  handle  of  a 
bronze  wine-kettle  attributed  to  the  Shang  dynasty  (B.C.  1766-1154). 
The  explanatory  text  runs  as  follows :  "The  two  lateral  ears  of  the  vessel 
are  connected  by  a  handle,  on  which  are  chased  two  characters  in  the 
shape  of  a  rhinoceros  (se).  When  it  is  said  in  the  Lun  yil  that  'a  tiger 
and  rhinoceros  escape  from  their  cage,' 2  it  follows  that  the  rhinoceros  is 

1  And  these  must  certainly  be  handled  with  a  critical  mind,  as,  for  instance,  a 
glance  at  the  chapter  "Ostrich "  in  the  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'tng  will  convince  one.  The  first 
extract  there  given  from  the  Ying  yai  sheng  Ian  of  1416  deals  with  the  "fire-bird" 
of  Sumatra,  which  is  the  cassowary  (see  GROENEVELDT,  in  Miscell.  Papers  relating  to 
Indo-China,  Vol.  I,  pp.  198,  262).  Mo  k'o  hui  si,  a  work  written  by  P'6ng  Ch'feng  in  the 
first  half  of  the  eleventh  century  (BRETSCHNEIDER,  Bot.  Sin.,  pt.  i,  p.  174),  is  quoted 
as  making  a  contribution  to  the  subject  in  question,  because  a  bird  able  to  eat  iron 
and  stone  is  mentioned  there;  this  bird,  however,  called  ku-t'o,  occurs  in  Ho-chou, 
the  present  Lan-chou  fu  in  Kan-su,  is  built  like  an  eagle,  and  over  three  feet  high! 
Accordingly  we  here  have  a  wrong  association  of  ideas,  and  the  subject  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  ostrich.  The  editors  of  the  cyclopaedia  blindly  follow  the  uncritical 
example  of  Li  Shi-ch6n,  who  embodied  the  same  in  his  notes  on  the  ostrich.  Finally, 
Verbiest's  K'un  yii  t'u  shuo  is  laid  under  contribution,  as  he  describes  the  "camel- 
bird"  of  South  America.  This  is  the  Rhea  belonging  to  the  Ratite  family,  but 
distinguished  from  the  true  ostrich  by  its  possession  of  three  toes. 

1  LEGGE,  Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  I,  p.  306;  and  above,  p.  74,  note  4. 


130 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


FIG.  18. 

Single-Horned  Rhinoceros  on  a  Bronze  Kettle  attributed  to  Sbang  Period  (from 
Po  ku  t'u  lu,  edition  of  1603). 


FIG.  19. 

Bushman  Sketches  of  Rhinoceros  (from  E.  Cartailhac  and  H.  Breuil, 
La  caverne  d'Altamira,  pp.  180,  189). 


FIG.  20. 
Red  Drawing  of  a  Two-Horned  Rhinoceros,  from  Font-de-Gaume  (after  Capitan  and  Breuil). 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS 


not  a  tame  animal.  Indeed,  it  inflicts  injury  on 
man;  and  for  this  reason  the  ancients  availed 
themselves  of  it  to  fine  a  person  a  cup  of  wine, 
which  is  expressed  by  the  phrase  'to  raise  the 
goblet  of  rhinoceros-horn.' l  This  goblet  receives 
its  name  from  the  rhinoceros,  and  so  it  is  proper 
also  that  there  should  be  wine-kettles  with  the 
emblem  of  the  rhinoceros.  On  the  two  ends  of 
the  handle  of  this  vessel  is  pictured  a  rhinoceros 
with  head  and  body  complete,  the  latter  having 
the  shape  of  a  glutton  (f  ao  t'ie).  This  certainly 
indicates  that  it  symbolizes  a  warning.  In  this 
manner  all  vessels  were  decorated  during  the 
Shang  dynasty,  and  it  is  by  such  symbolic  forms 
that  they  are  distinguished  from  those  of  the 
Chou."  Whatever  the  rough  character  of  these 
two  sketches  transmitted  by  the  Po  ku  t'u  lu 
may  be,2  the  single-horned  rhinoceros  is  here 
clearly  outlined  with  a  naive  and  refreshing 
realism,  such  as  could  be  spontaneously  produced 
only  by  the  hand  of  primitive  man,  who  with  a 
few  forceful  outlines  recorded  his  actual  ex- 
perience of  the  animal.  Here  we  do  not  face 
the  narrow-breasted  academic  and  philological 
construction  of  the  scholars  of  the  Sung  period, 
but  the  direct  and  vigorous  impression  of  the 
strong-minded  hunter  of  past  ages,  who  was 
formed  of  the  same  stuff  as  the  Bushman  of 
southern  Africa  and  palaeolithic  man  living  in 
the  caves  of  Spain  and  France.  No  bridge 
spans  the  chasm  yawning  between  the  Shang 
and  Sung  productions.  The  Shang  rhinoceros 
breathes  the  same  spirit  as  its  companions  on 
the  rock  paintings  of  the  Bushman  (Fig.  19), 
and  in  the  palaeolithic  cave  of  Font-de-Gaume 
in  France  (Fig.  20).  The  general  form  of  the 


FIG.  21. 

Inscription  on  Bronze  Kettle 
attributed  to  Shang  Period, 
showing  Pictorial  Form  of 
Sacrificial  Bull  (from  Po  ku 
fu  IK). 


1  Quotation  from  Shi  king  (see  LEGGE,  Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  IV,  p.  233).  The 
rhinoceros-horn  goblets  are  discussed  below,  p.  167. 

*  Another  cruder  and  more  conventionalized  symbol  of  the  rhinoceros  se,  in  which, 
however,  the  single  horn  is  duly  accentuated,  is  figured  in  the  same  work  (Ch.  i, 
p.  25  b),  as  occurring  in  the  inscription  on  a  round  tripod  vessel  (ting)  attributed 
to  the  Shang  period. 


132 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


animal  is  well  grasped  in  the  Chinese  sketch,  and  the  shape  of 
the  horn  is  correctly  outlined.  For  the  sake  of  comparison,  and  in 
order  to  show  that  the  primitive  Chinese  man  knew  very  well  how  to 
discriminate  between  a  rhinoceros  and  an  ox,  the  contemporaneous 
symbol  for  the  sacrificial  bull  (hi  niu),  and  designs  of  recumbent  oxen 
(explained  as  such  in  the  Po  ku  t*u  lu)  on  the  lid  of  a  bronze  vessel,  are 
here  added  (Figs.  21  and  22).  We  arrive  at  the  result,  which  will 

be  corroborated  by 
other  evidence,  that 
in  the  earliest  stage 
of  Chinese  culture 
the  animal  se  was 
the  single-horned 
rhinoceros.1 

Before  plunging 
into  the  Chinese 
sources  relative  to 
the  rhinoceros,  it 
will  be  well  to  re- 
member that  all 
living  species  of 
rhinoceros  are  by 
most  naturalists  referred  to  a  single  genus,  which  is  found  living  in 
Africa  and  south-eastern  Asia,  while  formerly  it  was  widely  distributed 
over  the  entire  Old  World  (with  the  exception  of  Australasia),  ranging 
as  far  north  as  Siberia.2  Three  species  exist  in  Asia,  —  Rhinoceros 
unicornis,  the  great  one-horned  rhinoceros,  at  the  present  day  almost 
entirely  restricted  to  the  Assam  plain,  but  formerly  extensively  dis- 
tributed over  India; 3  Rhinoceros  sundaicus,  called  also  the  Javan  rhino- 
ceros, the  smaller  one-horned  rhinoceros,  found  in  parts  of  eastern 
Bengal  (the  Bengal  Sunderbans  near  Calcutta),  in  Assam,  throughout 
Burma,  the  Malay  Peninsula,  Sumatra,  Java,  and  Borneo;  and  Rhino- 
ceros (or  Dicerorhinus)  sumatrensis,  the  Asiatic  two-horned  rhinoceros, 
rare  in  Assam,  ranging  from  there  to  Burma,  Siam,  the  Malay  Peninsula, 

1  The  later  developments  of  the  early  forms  of  the  symbol  se  may  be  viewed  by 
those  who  are  debarred  from  Chinese  sources  in  F.  H.  CHALFANT,  Early  Chinese 
Writing,  Plate  II,  No.  17  (Memoirs  Carnegie  Museum,  Vol.  IV,  No.  I,  Pittsburgh, 
1906).  According  to  a  communication  of  the  late  Mr.  CHALFANT  (Dec.  18,  1913), 
the  ancient  bone  inscriptions  twice  reveal  a  character  which  may  be  identified  with 
the  word  se,  while  the  character  for  si  has  not  yet  been  traced  in  them. 

1  Hornless  species  formerly  occurred  in  North  America,  where  the  group  has 
existed  since  the  latter  part  of  the  Eocene  period. 

'Chiefly  after  W.  T.  BLANFORD,  The  Fauna  of  British  India;  Mammalia, 
pp.  471-477- 


PIG.  22. 

Lid  of  Bronze  Kettle  attributed  to  Shang  Period,  with  Designs  of 
Recumbent  Oxen  (from  Po  ku  t'u  lu). 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  133 

Sumatra,  and  Borneo.1  Judging  from  this  remarkable  case  of  dis- 
continuous distribution2  and  from  historical  records,  there  is  every 
reason  to  believe  that  in  ancient  times  this  animal,  like  all  the  large 
mammals  now  facing  extinction,  was  distributed  over  a  much  larger 
geographical  area;  and  this  fact  is  fully  confirmed  by  palaeontological 
research,  as  well  as  by  the  records  of  the  Chinese. 

For  the  purpose  of  our  inquiry  it  should  be  particularly  borne  in 
mind  that  it  is  in  the  territory  of  Assam  where  we  meet  the  three  species 
together.  "The  Imperial  Gazetteer  of  India " 3  states,  in  the  chapter  on 
Assam,  "Rhinoceros  are  of  three  kinds:  the  large  variety  (unicornis), 
which  lives  in  the  swamps  that  fringe  the  Brahmaputra;  the  smaller 
variety  (sondaicus),  which  is  occasionally  met  with  in  the  same  locality; 
and  the  small  two-horned  rhinoceros  (sumatrensis) ,  which  is  now  and 
again  seen  in  the  hills  south  of  the  Surma  Valley,  though  its  ordinary 
habitat  is  Sumatra,  Borneo,  and  the  Malay  Peninsula."  Assam  is 
inhabited  by  numerous  tribes,  a  large  portion  of  which  ranges  among  the 
Indo-Chinese  family.  What  now  holds  good  for  Assam,  as  will  be 
recognized  from  a  survey  of  Chinese  sources,  two  millenniums  and  more 
ago  was  valid  for  the  south-western  and  southern  parts  of  China,  the 
Tibeto-Chinese  borderlands,  and  Indo-China  in  its  total  range;  in  short, 
the  historical  fact  will  be  established  that  in  the  past  the  rhinoceros  in  its 
two  main  varieties,  the  single-horned  and  two-horned,  had  occupied 
the  whole  territory  of  south-eastern  Asia. 

The  greater  part  of  the  knowledge  possessed  by  the  Chinese  in  re- 
gard to  the  rhinoceros  has  been  digested  by  Li  Shi-che'n  in  his  materia 
medica  Pin  ts'ao  kang  mu  (Ch.  51  A,  p.  5)  completed  in  1578  after  twenty- 
six  years'  labor.  He  first  quotes  a  number  of  authors  beginning  from 
the  fifth  century,  and  then  sums  up  the  argument  in  his  own  words. 
This  discourse  is  also  of  value  for  zoogeography,  in  that  it  contributes 
materially  to  the  possibility  of  reconstructing  the  early  habitats  of  the 
rhinoceros  in  China.  The  text  of  this  work  is  here  translated  in  extenso, 
but  rectified  and  supplemented  from  the  materia  medica  of  the  Sung 
period,  the  Cheng  lei  pSn  ts'ao,  first  printed  in  uo8.4 

lAl-BgrunI  (973-1048)  states  that  the  rhinoceros  existed  in  large  numbers  in 
India,  more  particularly  about  the  Ganges  (SACHAU,  /.  c..  Vol.  I,  p.  203).  In  the 
sixteenth  century  it  occurred  in  the  western  Himalaya  and  also  in  the  forests  near 
Peshawar  (YutE  and  BURNELL,  Hobson-Jobson,  p.  762).  LINSCHOTEN  found  it  in 
great  numbers  in  Bengal  (ibid.,  p.  i);  so  also  GARCIA  AB  HORTO  (/.  c.,  p.  66):  multos 
in  Cambaya  Bengala  finitima,  et  Patane  inveniri  tradunt.  ABUL  FAZL  ALL  AMI 
(I55I~i6o2),  in  his  A  in  I  Akbari  written  in  1597  (translation  of  H.  S.  JARRETT, 
Vol.  II,  p.  281,  Calcutta,  1891),  mentions  the  occurrence  of  the  rhinoceros  among  the 
game  in  the  Sarkar  of  Sambal  (near  Delhi). 

1  Compare  E.  HELLER,  The  White  Rhinoceros,  p.  39. 

1  Vol.  VI,  p.  20  (Oxford,  1908). 

*  See  T'oung  Pao,  1913,  p.  351. 


134 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


KB 


flu 


Kft 


I 


mil 


IE 


IB 


IB 


a 


it 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  135 

Other  texts  of  importance  apt  to  throw  light  on  the  matter  have  been 
added  from  the  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'tng  and  several  other  works,  so  that  the 
result  is  a  fairly  complete  digest  of  what  Chinese  authors  of  the  post- 
Christian  era  have  to  say  about  the  rhinoceros  and  its  horn.  After  this 
survey,  we  shall  turn  to  the  times  of  early  antiquity,  and  discuss  the 
subject  in  the  light  of  such  information  as  has  been  handed  down  to 
us  from  those  days. 

Li  Shi-che'n  opens  his  discourse  on  the  rhinoceros  with  the  explana- 
tion of  the  name.  "The  symbol  for  the  word  si  still  has  in  the  seal 
character  chuan  w&n  the  form  of  a  pictograph,1  and  is  the  name  for  the 
female  rhinoceros.  The  se  is  styled  also  'sand  rhinoceros'  (sha  si).  The 
Erh  ya  i 2  says  that  the  words  se  and  tse  (female)  approach  each  other  in 
sound  like  the  two  words  ku  ('ram,'  No.  6226)  and  ku  ('male').  In 
general,  si  and  se  are  one  and  the  same.  The  ancients  were  fond  of 
saying  se,  the  people  of  subsequent  times  inclined  toward  the  word  si. 
In  the  northern  dialects  the  word  se  prevails,  in  the  southern  dialects 
the  predilection  is  for  si.  This  is  the  difference  between  the  two.  In 
Sanskrit  literature  the  rhinoceros  is  called  khadga."  3 

Li  Shi-che'n  then  proceeds  to  quote  the  ancient  work  Pie  lu*  which 
makes  the  following  important  statement  in  regard  to  the  former 
localities  where  the  rhinoceros  occurred:  "The  habitat  of  the  rhinoceros 


1  This  is  indeed  the  case  in  the  Shuo  wSn  (see  p.  92).  The  names  of  the  rhinoceros 
and  the  various  kinds  of  its  horn  are  here  reproduced  from  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'Sng  (p.  134). 

1  An  appendix  to  the  Erh  ya  by  Lo  Yuan  of  the  twelfth  century  (BRETSCHNEIDER, 
Bot.  Sin.,  pt.  i,  p.  37). 

'Written  with  Nos.  1456  and  1558  (k'et-ga);  compare  EITEL,  Hand-book  of 
Chinese  Buddhism,  p.  76.  (Other  Sanskrit  words  for  "rhinoceros"  are  ganfa,  gandaka, 
gantfdnga.)  The  work  Sheng  shui  yen  fan  lu,  written  by  Wang  P'i-chi  about  the  end 
of  the  eleventh  century  (WvLiE,  Notes,  p.  195),  seems  to  be  the  first  to  impart  this 
Sanskrit  name  (see  the  Chinese  text  opposite) ;  it  further  gives  a  Sanskrit  word  for 
the  horn  in  the  Chinese  transcription  pi-sha-na  corresponding  to  Sanskrit  vishdna 
("horn").  The  latter  and  the  word  khatfga  were  among  the  first  Sanskrit  words  in 
Chinese  recognized  by  Abel  Re'musat  (see  S.  JULIEN,  M6thode,  p.  3). 

*  The  Pie  lu  is  not  identical  with  the  Ming  i  pie  lu,  as  first  stated  by  BRET- 
SCHNEIDER  (Bot.  Sin.,  pt.  i,  p.  42),  but  later  rectified  by  him  (in  pt.  3,  p.  2).  It  is  an 
independent  work,  which  must  have  existed  before  the  time  of  T'ao  Hung-king,  and 
which  was  known  to  the  latter  and  commented  on  by  him.  This  is  quite  clear  in  the 
present  case,  as  Li  Shi-chen  first  introduces  the  Pie  lu,  and  then  proceeds,  "T'ao  Hung- 
king  says."  And  since  the  latter  starts  with  the  phrase  "at  present,"  it  is  apparent 
that  he  had  the  words  of  the  Pie  lu  before  his  eyes,  and  gave  his  definition  in  distinc- 
tion from  the  older  work.  This  is  also  proved  by  the  text  of  the  Cheng  lei  ptn  ts'ao 
published  in  1108  by  the  physician  T'ang  Shen-wei  (edition  of  1523,  Ch.  17,  fol.  21), 
where  the  two  quotations  are  separated  and  marked  by  type  of  different  size.  As  in 
Bretschneider's  opinion  nearly  all  the  geographical  names  occurring  in  the  Pie  lu 
refer  to  the  Ts'in  (third  century  B.C.)  or  Han  periods,  although  some  of  them  can 
be  traced  to  the  Chou  dynasty  (B.C.  1122-249),  the  above  passage  surely  relates  to 
a  time  antedating  our  era  by  several  centuries;  and  it  goes  without  saying,  that  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  in  the  age  of  the  Chou  and  at  a  far  earlier  date,  the  two-homed 
rhinoceros  must  have  been  a  live  citizen  in  the  south-western  parts  of  China. 


136  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

(si)  is  in  the  mountains  and  valleys  of  Yung-ch'ang  and  in  Yi-chou;1 
Yung-ch'ang  is  the  southern  part  of  the  present  country  of  Tien  (Yun- 
nan). "  2 

The  next  author  invoked  by  Li  Shi-che"n  is  T'ao  Hung-king  (452- 
536),  a  celebrated  adept  of  Taoism  and  a  distinguished  physician, 
author  of  the  Ming  i  pie  lu,  a  treatise  on  materia  medica.3  He  states, 
"At  present  the  rhinoceros  (si)  inhabits  the  distant  mountains  of 
Wu-ling,4  Kiao-chou,6  and  Ning-chou.6  It  has  two  horns;  the  horn  on 
the  forehead  is  the  one  used  in  fighting.7  There  is  a  kind  of  rhinoceros 
styled  'communicating  with  the  sky'  (t'ung  t'ien),  whose  horn  is  in- 
tersected by  a  white  vein  running  clear  through  from  the  base  to  the 
tip;  the  night  dew  does  not  moisten  it.  It  is  employed  as  a  remedy, 
whereby  its  wonderful  properties  are  tested.  In  the  opinion  of  some, 
this  is  the  horn  of  the  water-rhinoceros,  which  is  produced  in  the  water.8 
The  Annals  of  the  Han  Dynasty  speak  of  the  horn  of  'the  rhinoceros 
frightening  fowl '  (hiai  ki  si) :  when  it  was  placed  in  the  rice  that  served  as 
food  for  the  chickens,  they  were  all  scared  and  did  not  dare  to  peck; 


1  PLAYFAIR,  The  Cities  and  Towns  of  China,  No.  8596  (2d  ed.,  No.  7527,  i).    In 
the  Han  period,  Yi-chou  was  the  name  of  a  province  occupying  the  territory  of  the 
present  province  of  Sze-ch\tan,  a  part  of  Kuei-chou  and  Yun-nan  (BRETSCHNEIDER, 
Bot.  Sin.,  pt.  3,  p.  565),  while  the  southern  part  of  Yun-nan  is  understood  by  the 
designation  Yung-ch'ang.    The  Pie  lu,  accordingly,  locates  in  south-western  China 
the  rhinoceros  si,  which,  as  follows  from  the  comment  of  T'ao  Hung-king,  is  the 
two-horned  species. 

2  This  last  clause  is  not  contained  in  the  text  of  the  Cheng  lei  pin  ts'ao,  and  is 
doubtless  a  later  comment,  presumably  derived  from  T'ao  Hung-king's  edition  of  the 
Pen  ts'ao  king,  which  is  listed  in  the  Catalogue  of  the  Sui  Dynasty,  and  according  to 
Bretschneider's  supposition,  embraced  likewise  the  text  of  the  Pie  lu. 

8  His  biography  is  in  Nan  ski  (Ch.  76,  p.  4  b)  and  Liang  shu  (Ch.  51,  p.  12). 
4  PLAYFAIR,  No.  8112  (2d  ed.,  No.  7080):  district  forming  the  prefectural  city 
of  Ch'ang-t6,  Hu-nan  Province. 

6  Northern  part  of  the  present  Tonking  (see  HIRTH  and  ROCKHILL,  Chau  Ju-kua, 
p.  46). 

•PLAYFAIR,  No.  5239,  2  (4672,  2):  in  Lin-an  fu,  Yun-nan  Province.  Under 
the  Tsin  it  was  a  province  comprising  Yun-nan  and  part  of  Kuei-chou  (compare 
Hua  yang  kuo  chi,  Ch.  4,  p.  I,  ed.  of  Han  Wei  ts'ung  shu). 

7  Thus  the  two-horned  (so-called  Sumatran)  rhinoceros  is  here  clearly  mentioned. 

8  The  rhinoceros  is  fond  of  spending  the  hot  hours  of  the  day  immersed  in  water, 
and  thence  the  Chinese  designation  "water-rhinoceros"  may  take  its  origin.    In  this 
position  particularly,  the  animal  calls  to  mind  the  water-buffalo.    In  ancient  times 
it  was  therefore  dreaded  as  being  able  to  overturn  boats,  which  is  quite  believable; 
and  soldiers  crossing  a  river  were  encouraged  to  prompt  action  by  their  commander 
shouting  the  name  of  the  animal  (CHAVANNES,  Les  M6moires  historiques  de  Se-ma 
Ts'ien,  Vol.  I,  p.  225,  Vol.  IV,  p.  37;  FORKE,  Lun-Heng,  pt.  II,  p.  322;  according  to 
FORKE,  the  reading  of  the  text  is  ts'ang  kuang,  but  as  quoted  in  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'eng 
and  P'ei  v>2n  yiinfu  it  is  ts'ang  se,  as  in  Se-ma  Ts'ien).    The  water-rhinoceros  (shui 
si)  is  mentioned  in  Kuang  chou  ki  (see  BRETSCHNEIDER,  Bot.  Sin.,  pt.  i,  No.  377)  as 
occurring  in  the  open  sea  off  the  district  of  P'ing-ting,  resembling  an  ox,  emitting 
light  when  coming  out  of,  or  descending  into,  the  water,  and  breaking  a  way  through 
the  water  (quoted  in  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'eng). 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  137 

when  it  was  placed  on  the  roof  of  a  house,  the  birds  did  not  dare  to 
assemble  there.1  There  is  also  the  horn  of  the  female  rhinoceros,  which 
is  very  long,  with  patterns  resembling  those  of  the  male,  but  it  is  not 
fit  to  enter  the  pharmacopoeia."  * 

1  The  allusion  to  the  hiai  ki  si  occurs  in  Ch.  108  of  Hou  Han  shu  (compare  CHA- 
VANNES,  Les  pays  d'Occident  d'apres  le  Heou  Han  Chou,  Toung  Pao,  1907,  p.  182; 
and  HIRTH,  China  and  the  Roman  Orient,  p.  79),  where  this  kind  of  horn  is  ascribed 
to  the  country  of  Ta  Ts'in  (the  Roman  Orient).  The  legend  given  in  explanation  as 
above  is  derived  from  the  famous  Taoist  writer  Ko  Hung,  who  died  about  330  A.D.  ; 
and  it  is  not  accidental  that  the  Taoist  T'ao  Hung-king  here  copies  his  older  colleague, 
for  the  legend  is  plainly  Taoistic  in  character.  It  is  quoted  in  the  commentary  to 
Hou  Han  shu,  but  not  in  the  text  of  the  Annals.  The  view  of  Hirth,  that  it  has  arisen 
in  consequence  of  a  false  etymology  based  on  the  Chinese  characters  transcribing  a 
foreign  word,  seems  to  me  unfounded.  First,  as  Chavannes  remarks,  the  foreign 
word  supposed  to  be  hidden  in  hiai-ki  has  not  yet  been  discovered,  and  in  all  probabil- 
ity does  not  exist.  Second,  as  will  be  seen  from  P'ei  wen  yiinfu  (Ch.  8,  p.  87  b),  the 
term  hiai  ki  si  does  not  occur  in  Hou  Han  shu  for  the  first  time,  but  is  noted  as  early 
as  the  Chan  kuo  ts'e  at  the  time  of  Chang  I,  who  died  in  B.C.  310,  when  the  King  of 
Ch'u  despatched  a  hundred  chariots  to  present  to  the  King  of  Ts'in  fowl-scaring 
rhinoceros-horns  and  jade  disks  resplendent  at  night  (ye  kuang  pi).  It  is  certainly 
somewhat  striking  to  meet  here  these  two  names,  which  are  identical  with  those  in 
Hou  Han  shu,  and  occur  there  close  together;  and  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  passage 
of  Chan  kuo  ts'e  might  be  an  interpolation.  Huai-nan-tse,  who  died  in  B.C.  122, 
alludes  to  a  rhinoceros-horn  frightening  foxes  (5*  kio  hiai  hu,  quoted  in  P'ei  wen  yiin 
/«,  /.  c.,  p.  89  a,  "when  placed  in  the  lair  of  a  fox,  the  fox  does  not  dare  return"), 
wftich  is  a  case  analogous  in  word  and  matter  to  the  fowl-frightening  horn.  These 
notions  must  be  taken  in  connection  with  the  other  legends  regarding  the  rhinoceros, 
which  all  seem  to  spring  from  indigenous  Taoist  lore.  The  text  of  Ko  Hung,  as  quoted 
in  P'ei  wen  yiin  fu  and  translated  by  Hirth  and  Chavannes,  is  fuller  than  cited 
above  in  the  Pen  ts'ao,  while  the  final  clause  in  regard  to  placing  the  horn  on  the 
roof  does  not  occur  in  Ko  Hung.  The  latter  links  the  hiai  ki  si  with  the  t'ung  t'ien, 
which  Hirth  and  Chavannes  translate  "communicating  with  Heaven."  This  is  cer- 
tainly all  right;  but  I  prefer  to  avoid  this  term,  because  it  may  give  rise  to  mis- 
understandings, as  we  are  wont  to  think  of  Heaven  as  the  great  cosmic  deity.  A  com- 
parative study  of  all  passages  concerned  renders  it  clear  that  the  rhinoceros  is  not 
associated  with  spiritual,  but  with  material  heaven;  that  is,  the  sky.  It  is  the  stars 
of  the  sky  which  are  supposed  to  be  reflected  in  the  veins  of  the  horn.  This  means 
that  the  designs  of  the  horn  gave  the  impetus  to  the  conception  of  connecting  the 
rhinoceros  with  the  phenomena  of  the  sky, —  again  a  thoroughly  Taoistic  idea,  in 
which  no  trace  of  an  outside  influence  can  be  discovered.  Father  ZOTTOLI  (Cursus 
litteraturae  sinicae,  new  ed.,  Vol.  I,  p.  301 )  renders  the  term  t'ung  t'ien  si  tai  by  "  pene- 
trantis  coelum  rhinocerotis  cingulum." —  Chao  Ju-kua  (HiRTH's  and  ROCKHILL'S 
translation,  p.  103)  attributes  hiai  ki  si  or  t'ung  t'ien  si  also  to  Baghdad  (but  I  see 
no  reason  why  these  words  should  denote  there  a  precious  stone,  instead  of  rhinoceros- 
horn).  On  p.  1 08  (note  10)  the  two  authors  represent  the  matter  as  though  this  refer- 
ence might  occur  in  Ling-wai  tai  ta,  but  in  fact  it  is  not  there  (Ch.  3,  p.  I  b);  it  must 
therefore  be  due  to  Chao  Ju-kua,  who  seems  to  indulge  in  a  literary  reminiscence  taken 
from  Hou  Han  shu.  The  passage,  accordingly,  affords  no  evidence  for  a  trade  in  rhino- 
ceros-horns from  Baghdad  to  China,  which  per  se  is  not  very  likely. — In  the  illustra- 
tions to  the  Feng  shen  yen  i  (ed.  of  Tsi  ch'eng  t'u  shu,  p.  9,  Shanghai,  1908),  T'ung 
t'ien  kiao  chu  (see  W.  GRUBE,  Die  Metamorphosen  der  Gotter,  p.  652)  is  seated 
astride  a  rhinoceros  (outlined  as  a  bull  with  a  single  striped  horn),  apparently  because 
his  name  Tung  t'ien  has  been  identified  with  t'ung  t'ien  si. 

1  There  are  several  additions  to  this  text  as  edited  in  the  Cheng  lei  pen  ts'ao,  the 
most  interesting  of  which  is  that  "only  the  living  horns  are  excellent."  This  means 
the  horn  of  a  live  animal  slain  in  the  chase,  which  was  believed  to  be  superior  in  qual- 
ity to  a  horn  cast  off  and  accidentally  found  (compare  HIRTH  and  ROCKHILL,  Chau 
Ju-kua,  p.  233).  Similar  beliefs  prevailed  in  regard  to  ivory.  That  coming  from  the 
tusk  of  an  elephant  killed  by  means  of  a  pike  was  considered  the  best;  next  in  quality 


138  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

Li  Shi-che'n  does  not  refer  to  Ko  Hung,  the  famous  Taoist  adept  of 
the  fourth  century,1  who  is  the  first  author  to  impart  a  fantastic  account 
in  regard  to  rhinoceros-horn.  He  is  likewise  the  first  to  set  forth  its 
quality  of  detecting  poison.  His  text  is  here  translated,  as  given  in 
T'u  shu  tsi  ch'eng.2 

"Mr.  Che"ng3  once  obtained  a  genuine  rhinoceros-horn  of  the  kind 
'communicating  with  the  sky,'  three  inches  long,  the  upper  portion  being 
carved  into  the  form  of  a  fish.  When  a  man  carries  such  a  piece  in 
his  mouth  and  descends  into  the  water,  the  water  will  give  way  for  him 
and  leave  a  vacant  space  three  feet  square,  so  that  he  has  a  chance  to 
breathe  in  the  water.4  The  horn  'communicating  with  the  sky*  has  a 
single  red  vein  like  a  silk  string  running  from  the  base  to  the  tip.  When 
a  horn  filled  with  rice  is  placed  among  a  flock  of  chickens,  the  chickens 
want  to  peck  the  grains.  Scarcely  have  they  approached  the  horn  to 
within  an  inch  when  they  are  taken  aback  and  withdraw.  Hence  the 
people  of  the  south  designate  the  horn  'communicating  with  the  sky' 
by  the  name  'fowl-frightening  horn.'  When  such  a  horn  is  placed  on  a 
heap  of  grain,  the  birds  do  not  dare  assemble  there.  Enveloped  by  a 
thick  fog  or  exposed  to  the  night  dew,  when  placed  in  a  courtyard,  the 
horn  does  not  contract  humidity.  The  rhinoceros  (si)  is  a  wild  animal 
living  in  the  deep  mountain-forests.  During  dark  nights  its  horn  emits 
a  brilliant  light  like  torch-fire.  The  horn  is  a  safe  guide  to  tell  the 
presence  of  poison :  when  poisonous  medicines  of  liquid  form  are  stirred 
with  a  horn,  a  white  foam  will  bubble  up,  and  no  other  test  is  necessary; 
when  non-poisonous  substances  are  stirred  with  it,  no  foam  will  rise. 
In  this  manner  the  presence  of  poison  can  be  ascertained.  When  on  a 
journey  in  foreign  countries,  or  in  places  where  contagion  from  ku 

was  the  ivory  of  an  animal  which  was  found  shortly  after  it  had  died  a  natural  death; 
least  esteemed  was  that  discovered  in  mountains  many  years  after  the  animal's 
death  (PELLIOT,  Bulletin  de  I'Ecole  frang aise  d'Extrdme-Orient,  Vol.  II,  1902,  p.  166). 
In  Siam,  the  rhinoceros  is  still  killed  with  bamboo  pikes  hardened  in  the  fire  and 
thrust  into  its  jaws  and  down  the  throat,  as  described  by  Bishop  PALLEGOIX  (Descrip- 
tion du  royaume  Thai  ou  Siam,  Vol.  I,  p.  75,  Paris,  1854). 

1  He  died  in  330  A.D.  at  the  age  of  eighty-one;  see  GILES  (Biographical  Dic- 
tionary, p.  372);  MAYERS  (Chinese  Reader's  Manual,  p.  86);  BRETSCHNEIDER  (Bot. 
Sin.,  pt.  I,  p.  42);  and  PELLIOT  (Journal  asiatique,  1912,  Juillet-Aout,  p.  145). 

*  Chapter  on  Rhinoceros  (hui  k'ao,  p.  3),  introduced  by  the  author's  literary 
name  Pao-p'u-tse,  and  the  title  of  his  work  T&ng  sht  p'ien,  which  is  not  included 
in  the  Taoist  Canon. 

1  Presumably  Ch6ng  Se-yuan,  a  relative  and  spiritual  predecessor  of  Ko  Hung 
(L.  WIEGER,  Taoisme,  Vol.  I,  Le  canon,  p.  16;  PELLIOT,  /.  c.,  p.  146). 

4  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  this  belief  is  still  upheld  in  the  modern  folk-lore  of 
Annam:  "Celui  qui  peut  se  procurer  une  corne  de  rhinoceros  et  la  sculpte  en  forme 
de  poisson,  s'il  la  met  entre  ses  dents,  peut  descendre  sans  danger,  comme  le  rhi- 
nooSros  ou  le  poisson,  tout  au  fond  de  1'eau"  (P.  GIRAN,  Magie  et  Religion  Annamites, 
p.  104,  Paris,  1912). 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  139 

poison l  threatens,  a  man  takes  his  meals  in  other  people's  houses,  he 
first  ought  to  stir  his  food  with  a  rhinoceros-horn.  When  a  man  hit  by 
a  poisonous  arrow  is  on  the  verge  of  dying,  and  his  wound  is  slightly 
touched  with  a  rhinoceros-horn,  foam  will  come  forth  from  his  wound, 
and  he  will  feel  relief.2  This  property  of  the  horn  'communicating 
with  the  sky'  of  neutralizing  poison  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that 
the  animal,  while  alive,  particularly  feeds  on  poisonous  plants  and 
trees  provided  with  thorns  and  brambles,3  while  it  shuns  all  soft  and 
smooth  vegetal  matter.  Annually  one  shedding  of  its  horn  takes  place 
in  the  mountains,  and  people  find  horns  scattered  about  among  the 
rocks;4  in  this  case,  however,  they  must  deposit  there,  in  the  place  of  the 
real  one,  another  horn  carved  from  wood,  identical  with  that  one  in  color, 
veins,  and  shape.  Then  the  rhinoceros  remains  unaware  of  the  theft. 
In  the  following  year  it  moves  to  another  place  to  shed  its  horn.8  Other 
kinds  of  rhinoceros-horn  also  are  capable  of  neutralizing  poison,  without 
having,  however,  the  wonderful  power  of  the  t'ung-t'ien  variety." 

Su  Kung,  the  editor  of  the  T'ang  sin  p$n  ts'ao  (the  revised  edition 
of  the  materia  medica  of  the  T'ang  dynasty)  states  as  follows:  "The 
tse  (No.  12,325)  is  the  female  rhinoceros.  The  patterns  on  its  horn  are 
smooth,  spotted,  white,  and  clearly  differentiated.  It  is  ordinarily 
called  the  'spotted  rhinoceros'  (pan  si).  It  is  highly  esteemed  in  pre- 


1  See  Toung  Poo,  1913,  p.  322. 

1  The  belief  that  the  horn  will  check  the  effects  of  poisoned  arrows  is  repeated  in 
the  Pei  hu  lu,  written  by  Tuan  Kung-lu  around  875  in  the  T'ang  period  (PELLIOT,  Bul- 
letin de  l'Ecolefran$aise,  Vol.  IX,  1909,  p.  223).  The  notes  of  this  book  regarding  the 
horn  are  all  based  on  the  text  of  Ko  Hung;  instead  of  t'ung  t'ien  si,  the  term  t'ung  si 
is  employed. 

1  The  animal  feeds,  indeed,  on  herbage,  shrubs,  and  leaves  of  trees. 

4  The  supposition  of  the  rhinoceros  shedding  its  horn  regularly  has  not  been  ascer- 
tained by  our  zoologists;  but  it  is  not  very  probable  that  it  does  so,  nor  have  the  Chi- 
nese made  the  actual  observation.  It  is  clear  that  their  conclusion  is  merely  based 
on  the  circumstantial  evidence  of  detached  horns  occasionally  found  and  picked  up 
in  the  wilderness,  which  suggested  to  them  the  notion  of  a  natural  process  similar 
to  the  shedding  of  cervine  antlers. 

'  A  similar  story  is  told  in  regard  to  the  elephant  by  Chen  Kuan,  who  wrote  two 
treatises  on  the  medical  virtues  of  drugs,  and  who  died  in  the  first  part  of  the  seventh 
century  (BRETSCHNEIDER,  Bot.  Sin.,  pt.  i,  p.  44):  "The  elephant,  whenever  it  sheds 
its  tusks,  itself  buries  them.  The  people  of  K'un-lun  make  wooden  tusks,  stealthily 
exchange  them,  and  take  the  real  ones  away."  K'un-lun  is  the  Chinese  designation 
for  the  Malayan  tribes  of  Malacca,  and  was  extended  to  Negrito,  Papua,  and  the 
negroes  of  Africa  (see  HIRTH  and  ROCKHILL,  Chau  Ju-kua,  p.  32).  In  this  connec- 
tion we  should  remember  also  the  words  of  PLINY  (Nat.  hist.,  vm,  3,  §7),  that  the 
elephants,  when  their  tusks  have  fallen  out  either  accidentally  or  from  old  age,  bury 
them  in  the  ground  (quam  ob  rem  deciduos  casu  aliquo  vel  senecta  defodiunt).  It 
is  not  impossible  that  the  great  quantity  of  fossil  ivory  mentioned  as  early  as  by 
THEOPHRAST  (De  lapidibus  37,  Opera  ed.  F.  WIMMER,  p.  345;  compare  the  interesting 
notes  of  L.  DE  LAUNAY,  Mine'ralogie  des  anciens,  Vol.  I,  pp.  387-390,  Bruxelles,  1803) 
may  have  given  rise  to  this  notion. 


140  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

scriptions,  but  is  not  such  an  efficient  remedy  as  the  horn  of  the  male 
rhinoceros." 1 

Ch'6n  Ts'ang-k'i,  who  lived  in  the  first  half  of  the  eighth  century, 
states  in  his  work  Pin  ts'ao  shi  i  ("Omissions  in  Previous  Works  on 
Materia  Medica")  as  follows:  "There  are  not  two  kinds  of  the  rhinoce- 
ros, called  the  land  and  water  animal.  This  distinction  merely  refers 
to  finer  and  coarser  qualities  of  horns.2  As  to  the  rhinoceros  'com- 
municating with  the  sky,'  the  horn  on  its  skull  elongates  into  a  point 
after  a  thousand  years.  It  is  then  adorned,  from  one  end  to  the  other, 
with  white  stars,  and  can  exhale  a  vapor  penetrating  the  sky;  in  this 
manner  it  can  communicate  with  the  spirits,3  break  the  water,  and 
frighten  fowl.  Hence  the  epithet  'communicating  with  the  sky'  is 
bestowed  on  it.  Pao-p'u-tse4  says,  'When  such  a  rhinoceros-horn  is 
carved  into  the  shape  of  a  fish,  and  one  holding  this  in  his  mouth  de- 
scends into  water,  a  passage  three  feet  wide  will  open  in  the  water.' " 8 

Su  Sung,  author  of  the  T'u  king  -pin  ts'ao,  published  by  imperial 
order  in  the  age  of  the  Sung  dynasty,  has  the  following:  " Of  rhinoceros- 
horn,  that  coming  from  the  regions  of  the  Southern  Sea  (Nan  hai)  takes 
the  first  place;  that  from  K'ien  and  Shu6  ranks  next.  The  rhinoceros 
resembles  the  water-buffalo,  has  the  head  of  a  pig,  a  big  paunch,  short 
legs,  the  feet  being  similar  to  those  of  the  elephant  and  having  three 
toes.  It  is  black  in  color,  and  has  prickles  on  its  tongue.  It  is  fond  of 
eating  thorny  brambles.7  Three  hairs  grow  from  each  pore  in  its  skin, 

1  Li  Shi-ch&n's  text  exactly  agrees  with  that  given  in  the  Ch&ng  lei  p$n  ts'ao.  It 
is  an  interesting  coincidence  that  the  horn  of  the  female  rhinoceros  (tse  si  kio)  is  men- 
tioned in  the  Annals  of  the  T'ang  Dynasty  (T'ang  shu,  Ch.  40,  p.  6  b)  as  the  tribute 
sent  from  the  district  of  Si-p'ing  in  Shen  chou,  the  present  territory  of  Si-ning  in 
Kan-su.  The  Annals  therefore  confirm  the  statement  of  the  contemporaneous  P2n 
ts'ao. 

*  It  will  be  seen  below  that  Li  Shi-ch6n  does  not  share  this  opinion. 

1  The  same  paragraph  is  found  in  Li  Shi,  the  author  of  the  Su  po  wu  chi  (Ch.  10, 
p.  8  b;  ed.  of  Pai  hai),  ascribed  by  tradition  to  the  T'ang  period,  but  in  fact  coming 
down  from  the  Sung.  He  interprets  the  expression  t'ung  t'ien  by  the  words,  "  It  is 
capable  of  communicating  with  the  spirits"  (n&ng  t'ung  sh&n).  According  to  him, 
"the  horn  communicating  with  the  sky"  is  a  thousand  years  old,  long  and  pointed, 
overstrewn  with  white  stars,  the  tip  emitting  a  vapor. 

4  Surname  of  Ko  Hung,  a  famous  Taoist  writer,  who  died  at  the  age  of  eighty-one 
about  330  A.D.  (see  p.  138). 

*  The  text  in  the  Chtng  lei  pin  ts'ao  is  somewhat  fuller.    It  opens  by  saying  that 
the  flesh  of  the  rhinoceros  cures  all  poisons,  especially  poisoning  caused  by  the  bites 
of  snakes  and  mammals.    On  Java  bits  of  the  horn  are  considered  as  an  infallible 
antidote  against  snake-bites  (P.  J.  VETH,  Java,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  289).     At  the  close  of 
Ch'fin  Ts'ang-k'i's  text  it  is  added  that  the  horn  is  called  also  nu  kio  (literally,  "slave 
horn")  and  shi  kio  ("the  horn,  with  which  the  animal  feeds");  the  word  nu  seems  to 
be  the  transcription  of  a  word  from  a  non-Chinese  language. 

*  Ancient  designations  for  the  present  territory  of  the  provinces  of  Kuei-chou  and 
Sze-ch'uan. 

7  The  entire  definition,  except  the  "prickles  on  the  tongue,"  is  derived  from  Kuo 
P'o  (see  p.  93).  MARCO  POLO  (ed.  of  YULE  and  CORDIER,  Vol.  II,  p.  285),  speaking  of 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  141 

as  in  swine.     There  are  one-horned,  two-horned,  and  three-horned 
ones."  l 


the  rhinoceros  on  Java,  says,  "They  do  no  mischief,  however,  with  the  horn,  but  with 
the  tongue  alone;  for  this  is  covered  all  over  with  long  and  strong  prickles  [and  when 
savage  with  any  one  they  crush  him  under  their  knees  and  then  rasp  him  with  their 
tongue]."  YULE  comments  that  the  belief  in  the  formidable  nature  of  the  tongue  of 
the  rhinoceros  is  very  old  and  widespread,  though  he  can  find  no  foundation  for  it 
other  than  the  rough  appearance  of  the  organ.  Dr.  PARSONS  (p.  9  in  the  pamphlet 
quoted  above,  p.  83)  observes,  "As  to  the  tongue  of  the  rhinoceros,  the  scribes  assure 
us  that  it  is  so  rugged  that  it  can  lick  off  with  it  the  flesh  from  the  bones  of  a  man, 
but  the  tongue  of  the  live  animal  examined  by  me  is  as  soft  and  mild  as  that  of  a  calf; 
whether  it  will  grow  rougher  with  the  advancing  age  of  the  animal,  I  am  unable  to 
say."  It  is  easy  to  see  how  the  fable  of  the  prickly  tongue  arose.  The  animal  mainly 
feeds  on  herbage,  and  the  alleged  or  real  observation  of  its  inclination  for  brambles 
led  to  the  conclusion  that  its  tongue  must  be  thorn-proof  and  prickly.  A  similar 
belief  seems  to  obtain  in  Siam:  "On  dit  que  ce  monstrueux  quadrupede  fait  ses 
d^lices  des  Opines  de  bambou"  (Mgr.  PALLEGOIX,  Description  du  royaume  Thai  ou 
Siam,  Vol.  I,  p.  156,  Paris,  1854). 

1  Now  follows  in  the  P2n  ts'ao  the  quotation  from  the  Erh  ya  translated  above 
(p.  93).  The  text  then  following  in  the  PSn  ts'ao  is  purported  to  be  a  quotation  from  Ling 
piao  lu  i;  but  it  is  in  fact  abridged,  and  intermingled  with  extracts  from  Yu  yang  tsa 
tsu.  For  this  reason  I  have  abandoned  at  this  point  the  text  of  the  PSn  ts'ao,  and 
given  separately  translations  of  the  two  documents,  as  they  are  published  in  T'u  shu 
tsi  ch'eng  (Chapter  on  Rhinoceros,  hui  k'ao,  p.  4).  In  evidence  of  my  statement, 
the  text  of  the  Ptn  ts'ao  here  follows ;  the  main  share  in  the  confusion  will  probably 
be  due  to  Su  Sung,  not  to  Li  Shi-chen.  "  The  Ling  piao  lu  i  by  Liu  Sun  (of  the  T'ang 
period)  says,  'The  rhinoceros  has  two  horns:  the  one  on  the  forehead  is  called  se  si, 
the  other,  on  the  nose,  is  called  hu  mao  si.  The  male  rhinoceros  also  has  two  horns 
both  of  which  are  comprised  under  the  name  mao  si  ('hairy  rhinoceros').  At  present 
people  uphold  the  opinion  that  it  has  but  a  single  horn.  These  two  kinds  of  horn  are 
provided  with  grain  patterns,  and  their  price  largely  depends  upon  the  finer  or  coarser 
qualities  of  these  designs.  The  most  expensive  is  the  horn  with  floral  designs  of  the 
rhinoceros  'communicating  with  the  sky.'  The  animals  with  such  horns  dislike  their 
own  shadow,  and  constantly  drink  muddy  water  in  order  to  avoid  beholding  their 
reflection.  High-grade  horns  bear  likenesses  of  all  things.  Some  attribute  the 
qualities  of  the  t'ung  t'ien  horn  to  a  pathological  cause,  but  the  natural  reason  cannot 
be  ascertained.  The  term  tao  ch'a  means  that  one  half  of  the  lines  pass  through  in 
the  direction  downward;  the  term  chtng  ch'a  means  that  one  half  01  the  lines  pass 
through  in  the  direction  upward;  the  term  yao  ku  ch'a  means  that  the  lines  are  inter- 
rupted in  the  middle,  and  do  not  pass  through.  Such-like  are  a  great  many.  The 
Po-se  designate  ivory  as  po-ngan,  and  rhinoceros-horn  as  hei-ngan, —  words  difficult  to 
distinguish.  The  largest  rhinoceros-horn  is  that  of  the  to-lo-si,  a  single  horn  of  which 
weighs  from  seven  to  eight  catties.  This  is  identified  with  the  horn  on  the  forehead  of 
the  male  rhinoceros.  It  has  numerous  decorations  conveying  the  impression  of  scattered 
beans.  If  the  specks  are  deep  in  color,  the  horn  is  suitable  to  be  made  into  plaques 
for  girdle-ornaments;  if  the  specks  are  scattered  here  and  there,  and  light  in  color, 
the  horn  can  be  made  only  into  bowls  and  dishes.  In  the  opinion  of  some,  the  animal 
called  se  is  the  female  of  the  si.  [It  resembles  the  water-buffalo,  and  is  of  dark 
color.  Its  hide  is  so  hard  and  thick  that  it  can  be  worked  into  armor.]  I  do  not  know 
whether  this  is  the  case  or  not."  (There  is  here  a  confusion  in  Li  Shi-chen's  text. 
The  passage  enclosed  in  brackets  does  not  occur  in  the  text  of  the  Ching  lei  pSn  ts'ao, 
where  it  runs,  "In  the  opinion  of  some,  the  animal  called  se  is  the  female  of  the  si; 
I  do  not  know  whether  this  is  the  case  or  not."  The  rest  is  evidently  interpolated, 
and  is  derived  from  the  Shuo  win  and  its  commentaries;  at  all  events,  it  cannot  be 
ascribed  to  Su  Sung.)  "Wu  Shi-kao,  a  physician  of  the  T'ang  period,  tells  the  fol- 
lowing story:  'The  people  near  the  sea,  intent  on  capturing  a  rhinoceros,  proceed  by 
erecting  on  a  mountain-path  many  structures  of  decayed  timber,  something  like  a 
stable  for  swine  or  sheep.  As  the  front  legs  of  the  rhinoceros  are  straight,  without 
joints,  it  is  in  the  habit  of  sleeping  by  leaning  against  the  trunk  of  a  tree.  The  rotten 


142  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

The  Ling  piao  lu  i  ki l  says,  "  The  rhinoceros,  in  general,  resembles  an 
ox  in  form.  Its  hoofs  and  feet  are  like  those  of  the  elephant.  It  has 
a  double  armor  and  two  horns.  The  one  on  the  forehead  is  styled  se  si; 
the  other,  on  the  nose,  which  is  comparatively  smaller,  is  termed  hu  mao 
si.2  The  designs  and  spots  in  the  anterior  horn  are  small;  many  have 
extraordinary  patterns.  The  male  rhinoceros  likewise  has  two  horns, 
both  of  which  are  designated  mao  si  ('hairy  rhinoceros'),  and  are 
provided  with  grain  patterns.3  They  are  capable  of  being  worked  into 
plaques  for  girdles.4  Among  a  large  number  of  rhinoceros-horns  there 


timber  will  suddenly  break  down,  and  the  animal  will  topple  in  front  without  being 
able  for  a  long  time  to  rise.  Then  they  attack  and  kill  it.'  "  The  conclusion  is 
translated  above  in  the  text. 

1  In  the  Pdn  ts'ao,  and  otherwise,  usually  styled  Ling  piao  lu  i.  According  to  BRET- 
SCHNEIDER  (Bot.  Sin.,  pt.  i,  p.  170),  it  is  an  account  of  the  natural  productions  of 
China  by  Liu  Sun  of  the  T'ang  dynasty. 

2  HIRTH  and  ROCKHILL  (Chau  Ju-kua,  p.  233),  briefly  alluding  to  this  text,  under- 
stand the  terms  se  si  and  hu  mao  si  as  two  different  varieties  of  the  rhinoceros.    This 
point  of  view  seems  to  me  inadmissible,  as  Liu  Sun  distinctly  speaks  of  the  two-horned 
variety  only,  and  then  goes  on  to  specify  the  two  horns  in  the  same  animal,  which 
differing  in  size  and  shape  are,  from  a  commercial  and  industrial  standpoint,  of  dif- 
ferent value.    The  term  Hu  mao  ('cap  of  the  Hu ' ;  the  Hu  in  general  designate  peoples 
of  Central  Asia,  Turks  and  Iranians)  is  a  very  appropriate  designation  for  the  anterior 
horn  of  this  species,  which  is  a  low,  flat,  roundish  knob,  and  indeed  resembles  a  small 
skull-cap.    In  the  Ming  kung  shi  (Ch.  4,  p.  8;  new  edition  in  movable  types,  1910,  in 
8  chs.),  a  most  interesting  description  of  the  life  at  the  Court  of  the  Ming  dynasty 
(compare  HIRTH,  T'oung  Pao,  Vol.  VI,  1895,  p.  440),  this  cap  is  explained  as  coming 
down  from  the  T'ang  dynasty,  and  as  having  been  used  by  the  heir-apparent  of  the 
Ming ;  it  was  made  from  sable  and  ermine  skins,  and  worn  in  the  winter  on  hunting- 
expeditions  to  keep  the  ears  warm.    It  is  mentioned  in  T'ang  shu,  Ch.  24,  p.  8  (and 
presumably  in  other  passages). 

8  Li  Shi-chSn  (p.  150)  expands  this  theme.  Fang  I-chi,  who  graduated  in  1640,  in 
his  Wu  li  siao  shi  (Ch.  8,  p.  20  b),  states  that  only  the  rhinoceros-horn  of  Siam  has 
grain  patterns,  while  they  are  absent  in  the  hairy  (that  is,  the  double-horned)  rhi- 
noceros of  Annam,  which  has  flower-like  and  spotted  designs. 

4  In  the  Treasure-House  of  Nara  in  Japan  are  preserved  objects  carved  from 
rhinoceros-horn  coming  down  from  the  T'ang  period,  as  leather  belts  with  horn 
plaques,  drinking-cups,  Ju-i,  and  back-scratchers.  The  girdles  studded  with  plaques 
carved  from  the  horn  seem  to  make  their  appearance  in  China  under  the  T'ang 
dynasty;  the  assertion  of  BUSHELL  (Chinese  Art,  Vol.  I,  p.  119)  that  they  were  the 
"official"  girdles  of  the  dynasty  does  not  seem  to  be  justified:  at  least,  they  are 
not  enumerated  in  the  class  of  official  girdles,  but  seem  to  have  been  restricted  to 
the  use  of  princesses  (compare  the  account  of  Tu  yang  tsa  pien,  translated  below, 
p.  152).  Interesting  texts  bearing  on  rhinoceros-horn  girdles  are  communicated  in  T'u 
shu  tsi  ch'Sng  (Chapter  on  Girdles,  tai  p'ei,  ki  shi,  p.  9  b).  Such  girdles  were  made 
also  in  Champa:  the  Sung  Annals  (Sung  shi,  Ch.  489,  p.  2)  relate  a  tribute  sent  from 
there  in  the  period  Hien-tl  (954-962)  of  the  Hou  Chou  dynasty;  it  was  local  products 
including  rhinoceros-horn  girdles  with  plaques  carved  in  the  form  of  cloud-dragons. 
A  rhinoceros-horn  girdle  sent  from  the  Court  of  the  Sung  to  that  of  the  Khitan  is  men- 
tioned in  Liao  shi  (Ch.  10,  p.  i).  Under  the  Kin  dynasty  (1115-1234)  the  materials 
employed  for  official  costume  were  ranked  in  the  order  jade,  gold,  rhinoceros-horn, 
ivory  (Kin  shi,  Ch.  34,  §  3,  p.  7).  The  emperor  wore  a  hat-pin  of  rhinoceros-horn, 
and  a  girdle  of  black  horn  (wu  si  tai) ;  the  imperial  saddle  was  decorated  with  gold, 
silver,  rhinoceros-horn,  and  ivory.  Officials  of  the  second  rank  and  higher  were  en- 
titled to  a  girdle  of  the  t'ung  si  horn;  those  of  the  third  rank,  to  a  girdle  of  the  hua  si 
horn ;  the  rest,  to  plain  rhinoceros-horn  girdles  (ibid.,  Ch.  43).  They  were  in  vogue  also 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  143 

are  few  in  which  the  lines  pass  through  from  one  end  to  the  other. 
These  are  pointed,  and  their  designs  are  large  and  numerous.  Those 
with  small  designs  are  styled  too  ch'a  t'ung.1  These  two  kinds  are  called 
also  'bottomless  jade  cups.' 2  If  there  is  not  sufficient  space  for  the 
lines  to  pass  through,  and  the  white  and  black  designs  are  equally 
distributed,  then  the  price  is  considerably  increased,  and  the  horn  will 
become  the  treasure  of  numberless  generations.  When  I  lived  at 
P'an-yii,3 1  made  a  thorough  examination  of  what  is  current  there  con- 
cerning rhinoceros-horn.  There  is,  further,  the  to-lo-si,  the  largest 
among  the  rhinoceros-horns,  which  may  reach  seven  catties  in  weight.4 
This  is  the  horn  on  the  forehead  of  the  male  rhinoceros,  which  has 
numerous  designs  in  the  interior  conveying  the  impression  of  scattered 
beans.  If  the  stripes  are  deep  in  color,  the  horn  is  capable  of  being  made 
into  girdle-plaques  and  implements;  if  the  stripes  are  dispersed  and  light 
in  color,  the  horn  may  be  employed  to  advantage  for  the  making  of  cups, 


at  the  Court  of  the  Ming  emperors  (Ta  Ming  hui  lien,  Ch.  5,  p.  30),  and  were  allowed 
to  alternate  with  tortoise-shell  girdles  (Ming  kung  shi  by  Liu  Jo-yu,  Ch.  4,  p.  3  b, 
new  ed.  of  1910).  Under  the  Yuan  dynasty  a  bureau  for  works  in  rhinoceros-horn 
and  ivory  was  established.  This  was  a  sort  of  court-atelier,  in  which  couches,  tables, 
implements,  and  girdle-ornaments  inlaid  with  these  materials  were  turned  out  for 
the  use  of  the  imperial  household.  An  official  was  placed  in  charge  of  it  in  1263, 
and  he  received  an  assistant  in  1268;  the  force  consisted  of  a  hundred  and  fifty  work- 
ing-men (Yuan  shi,  Ch.  90,  p.  5,  K'ien-lung  edition).  According  to  Qazwml  (1203- 
83),  the  inhabitants  of  Sandabil  (Kan-chou  in  Kan-su  Province)  were  clad  in  silk 
and  adorned  with  ivory  and  rhinoceros-horn  (J.  MARQUART,  Osteuropaische  und 
ostasiatische  Streifzuge,  p.  87,  Leipzig,  1903).  DE  GOEJE  is  inclined  to  think  in 
this  connection  of  rhinoceros-horn  set  with  gold  and  worn  as  amulet;  but  an  instance 
of  such  a  mode  of  use  is  not  known  in  China,  and  it  rather  seems  that  it  is  in  this  case 
likewise  the  question  of  girdles  decorated  with  plaques  of  ivory  and  rhinoceros-horn. 
The  Mohammedan  authors  were  well  aware  of  the  fondness  of  the  Chinese  for  this 
material  and  its  employment  for  girdles,  and  during  the  middle  ages  became  the 
most  active  importers  of  the  horn  into  China.  The  Arabic  merchant  Soleiman  writ- 
ing in  851  relates  that  the  inhabitants  of  China  make  from  the  horn  girdles  reaching 
in  price  to  two  and  three  thousand  dinars  and  more,  according  to  the  beauty  of  the 
figure  found  in  the  design  of  the  horn  (M.  REINAUD,  Relation  des  voyages  faits  par 
les  Arabes,  Vol.  I,  p.  29).  Hafiz  el  Gharb,  who  wrote  at  the  end  of  the  eleventh 
century,  observed,  "The  most  highly  esteemed  ornaments  among  the  Chinese  are 
made  from  the  horn  of  the  rhinoceros,  which,  when  cut,  presents  to  the  eye  singular 
and  varied  figures"  (CH.  SCHEFER,  Relations  des  Musulmans  avec  les  Chinois,  p.io, 
in  Cenlenaire  de  I'Ecole  des  langues  orientales,  Paris,  1895). 

1  Too,  "to  reverse;"  ch'a,  "to  insert;"  t'ung,  "to  pass  through." 

1  Thus  this  phrase  is  explained  in  GILES'S  Dictionary,  p.  1326  b  (tenth  entry). 

*  PLAYFAIR  (2d  ed.),  No.  4927:    one  of  the  two  districts  forming  the  city  of 
Kuang-chou  (Canton). 

*  HIRTH  and  ROCKHILL  (Chau  Ju-kua,  p.  233),  relying  on  Gerini,  identify  the  coun- 
try To-lo  or  To-ho-lo,  as  written  in  "Tang  shu,  with  a  country  situated  on  the  Gulf  of 
Martaban.    The  journey  from  Kuang-chou  to  that  country  takes  five  months.     An 
embassy  with  tribute  came  from  there  to  China  in  the  period  Chfing-kuan  (627- 
650) ,  and  emphasis  is  laid  on  the  great  number  of  fine  rhinoceroses.  See  also  SCHLEGEL 
(Toung  Pao,  Vol.  IX,  1898,  p.  282)  and  PELLIOT  (Bull,  de  I'Ecolc  fran$aise,  Vol.  IV, 
1904,  P.  360)- 


144  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

dishes,  utensils,  platters,  and  the  like.1  Then  there  is  the  horn  '  frighten- 
ing fowl'  with  a  white,  silk-like  thread;  placed  in  the  rice,  it  scares  the 
fowl  away.  The  '  dust-dispelling  horn '  is  utilized  to  make  hairpins  and 
combs  for  women;  it  keeps  dust  out  of  the  hair.  As  to  the  'water- 
dispelling  horn,'  when  brought  into  the  water  of  a  river  or  the  sea,  it 
has  the  power  of  breaking  a  way  across  it.  Exposed  to  a  fog,  and  in  the 
evening,  it  does  not  contract  moisture.  As  to  the  'resplendent  horn,' 
this  one,  when  put  in  a  dark  house,  emits  its  own  light.2  Of  all  these 
various  horns,  I  know  only  from  hearsay,  for  I  have  not  been  able  to 
procure  and  see  them." 

The  Yu  yang  tsa  tsu  by  Tuan  Ch'e'ng-shi  of  the  ninth  century8 
makes  the  following  comments  on  the  rhinoceros:  "The  variety  of 
rhinoceros  styled  '  communicating  with  the  sky '  dislikes  its  own  shadow, 
and  is  in  the  habit  of  drinking  muddy  water.4  When  the  animal  is  im- 
mersed in  the  water,  men  avail  themselves  of  this  opportunity  to  cap- 
ture it,  as  it  is  impossible  for  it  to  pull  its  feet  out  of  the  mud.  The  natu- 
ral structure  of  the  horn  is  such  that  it  is  filled  with  figures  resembling 
objects  of  nature.  It  is  asserted  by  others  that  the  designs  penetrat- 
ing the  rhinoceros-horn  are  pathological.5  There  are  three  varieties 
of  design,  styled  tao  ch'a  ('lines  inverted  and  inserted'),  cheng  ch'a 
('straight  and  inserted'),  and  yao  ku  ch'a  ('inserted  like  a  barrel-shaped 
drum').6  They  are  styled  'inverted,'  if  one  half  of  the  lines  pass 

1  The  colors  indicated  by  the  Chinese  writers  altogether  answer  the  facts.  In  its 
exterior,  the  color  of  rhinoceros-horn  is  usually  black  or  dark  brown.  A  cross-section 
reveals  various  colors.  A  specimen  kindly  presented  to  the  Museum  by  Mr.  F.  W 
Kaldenberg  of  New  York  exhibits  in  the  interior  a  large  black  zone  running  through 
the  centre  and  extending  from  the  base  to  the  tip,  and  filling  the  entire  space  of  the 
extremity.  In  the  lower,  broad  portion  it  is  surrounded  on  the  one  side  by  a  gold- 
brown  section,  about  3.5  cm  wide  and  21  cm  long,  and  on  the  other  side  by  a  mottled 
light-yellow  and  greenish  zone  almost  soap-like  in  appearance.  This  horn  was 
found  in  the  woods,  and  is  in  places  eaten  through  by  insects.  The  surface  of  the 
base  exhibits  the  tips  of  the  bristles,  and  appears  like  a  coarse  brush.  The  fibres 
running  longitudinally,  owing  to  the  effect  of  weathering,  can  be  easily  detached. 

*  As  shown  above  (p.  138),  optic  properties  are  attributed  to  the  horn  as  early  as 
the  time  of  Ko  Hung.  The  subject  is  discussed  in  detail  below  (p.  151). 

1  As  now  established  by  P.  PELLIOT  (T'oung  Pao,  1912,  pp.  373-375),  this  work 
was  published  about  860. 

4  The  Pin  ts'ao  adds,  "  In  order  to  avoid  beholding  its  reflection."  This  notion  is 
doubtless  derived  from  the  animal's  predilection  for  a  mud-bath ;  its  favorite  haunts 
are  generally  in  the  neighborhood  of  swamps  (LYDEKKER,  /.  c.,  p.  31). 

6  The  Pin  ts'ao  adds,  "But  the  natural  reason  cannot  be  ascertained."  This  is 
a  comment  of  Su  Sung. 

'  The  meaning  of  these  technical  terms  is  not  quite  easy  to  grasp.  The  word  tao 
(No.  10,793)  is  "to  invert,"  ch'a  (No.  205)  means  "to  insert:"  tao  ch'a,  accordingly, 
may  mean  "lines  inserted  in  the  horn  in  an  inverted  position;"  and  ching  ch'a,  "lines 
inserted  straight."  Yao  ('loins')  ku  (No.  6421 ;  in  Pin  ts'ao  erroneously  No.  6227)  is 
the  former  name  for  a  barrel-shaped  drum  (hua  ku,  see  A.  C.  MOULE,  Chinese  Musical 
Instruments,  p.  57,  where  an  example  from  a  verse  of  Su  Tung-p'o  is  quoted).  Yao 
K'uan,  the  author  of  the  Si  k'i  ts'ung  yu,  written  about  the  middle  of  the  twelfth 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  145 

through  in  the  direction  downward.  They  are  styled  'straight,'  if  one 
half  of  the  lines  pass  through  in  the  direction  upward.  They  are 
styled  'drum-shaped,'  if  the  lines  are  interrupted  in  the  middle,  without 
passing  through.  The  Po-se  designate  ivory  as  po-ngan,  and  rhinoceros- 
horn  as  hei-ngan.1  Wu  Shi-kao,  a  physician  from  Ch'£ng  shi  m6n, 

century  (WvLiE,  Notes,  p.  160),  makes  the  following  remark:  "The  fundamental 
color  of  rhinoceros-horn  is  black.  Is  the  color  simultaneously  black  and  yellow,  the 
horn  is  styled  'standard  throughout'  (cheng  t'ou).  Is  the  horn  yellow  with  black 
borders,  it  is  styled  'inverted  throughout'  (tao  t'ou).  The  horns  of  standard  color 
are  highly  esteemed  by  our  contemporaries.  If  the  shape  of  the  horn  is  round,  it  is 
designated  as  'horn  communicating  with  the  sky'  (t'ung  t'ien  si).  In  the  south,  there 
are  counterfeits  which  may  be  recognized  from  gradually  getting  warm  when  rubbed. 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  rhinoceros- horn  by  nature  is  cold,  it  does  not  become  warm 
when  rubbed." 

1  Su  Sung[  makes  the  addition,  "words  difficult  to  distinguish."  Po-ngan  means 
literally  "white  ngan"  (No.  57),  and  hei-ngan  "black  ngan,  ' — evidently  transcrip- 
tions of  Po-se  words.  PALLADIUS,  in  his  Chinese-Russian  Dictionary  (Vol.  I,  p.  7), 
has  indicated  po-ngan  ("ivory")  and  hei-ngan  ("rhinoceros-horn")  as  Persian  loan- 
words. Ivory,  however,  is  called  in  Persian  shirmaht;  and  rhinoceros,  as  well  as  the 
horn  of  it,  kerkeden.  It  is  true  that  Po-se  is  the  Chinese  name  for  Persia,  which  first 
appears  in  the  Wei  shu;  but  Persia  is  not  meant  in  the  above  passage.  P'ei  wen  yun 
fu  (Ch.  8,  p.  89  b)  gives  three  quotations  under  the  heading  hei-ngan  si.  One  from  a 
book  Sheng  shui  yen  fan  says  that  the  Po-se  call  rhinoceros-horn  hei-ngan;  the  refer- 
ence to  the  name  of  ivory  is  omitted,  so  that  the  clause  "it  is  difficult  to  discriminate" 
makes  no  sense.  The  second  is  derived  from  the  Leng  chai  ye  hua  of  the  monk  Hui- 
hung,  written  toward  the  close  of  the  eleventh  century  (WYLIE,  Notes  on  Chinese 
Literature,  p.  164),  and  says  that  "the  men  of  the  south  (nan  jen)  designate  ivory  as 
po-ngan,  rhinoceros-horn  as  hei-ngan."  The  third  reference  is  taken  from  a  poem  of 
Tu  Fu  (712-770),  who  remarks  that  hei-ngan  is  a  general  article  of  trade  of  the  Man. 
These  texts  render  it  probable  that  the  country  of  Po-se  here  referred  to  is  not  Persia, 
but  identical  with  the  Malayan  region  Po-se  mentioned  by  Chou  K'u-fei  in  his 
Ling-wai  tai  ta,  written  in  1178  (Ch.  3,  p.  6b;  edition  of  Chi  pu  tsu  chai  ts'ung  shu), 
and  then  after  him  in  the  Chufanchi,  written  in  1225  by  Chao  Ju-kua  (translation 
of  HIRTH  and  ROCKHILL,  p.  125).  The  two  authors  seek  it  in  or  near  the  Malay 
Peninsula,  though  Negritos  are  not  necessarily  to  be  understood:  the  mere  state- 
ment that  the  inhabitants  have  a  dark  complexion  and  curly  hair  is  not  sufficient  to 
warrant  this  conclusion.  GERINI  identifies  the  name  Po-se  with  Lambesi  below 
Atjeh  on  the  west  coast  of  Sumatra,  which  seems  somewhat  hypothetical.  Mr.  C. 
O.  BLAGDEN  (Journal  Royal  As.  Soc.,  1913,  p.  168)  is  inclined  to  regard  Po-se  as 
identical  with  Pase  (or  Pasai)  in  north-eastern  Sumatra,  but  adds  that  there  is  no 
evidence  that  the  place  existed  as  early  as  1178.  The  above  text  shows  that  the  Po-se 
of  the  Chinese  mediaeval  writers  were  a  Malayan  tribe  speaking  a  Malayan  language, 
for  the  two  transcriptions  po-ngan  and  hei-ngan  can  be  interpreted  through  Malayan. 
In  the  Hakka  dialect,  hei-ngan  is  hel-am;  and  hitam  is  the  Malayan  word  for  "black" 
(Javanese  Ngoko  hireng).  Pei-ngan  is  in  the  Hakka  dialect  p'ak-am  (compare  Dic- 
tionnaire  chinois-francais  dialecte  Hac-ka  by  CH.  REY),  in  Cantonese  pak-om,  in 
Yang-chou  puk-yd.  In  Javanese  Krami  "white"  is  petak,  in  Javanese  Ngoko  putih, 
likewise  in  Batak,  in  common  Malayan  puteh.  We  should  expect  that  the  two 
Malayan  words,  judging  from  the  Chinese  transcriptions,  would  terminate  in  the  same 
syllable,  which  caused  misunderstandings  on  the  part  of  Chinese  dealers.  There  is 
(or  was)  perhaps  a  certain  Malayan  dialect,  in  which  the  word  for  "white"  ended  in 
-am,  or  in  which  the  words  for  "white "  and  "black  "  terminated  in  -t  or  -ih  (compare 
Madagassy  intim,  inti,  "black;"  and  puti,  "white;"  G.  FERRAND,  Essai  de  pho- 
ne^ique  comp.  du  malais  et  des  dialectes  malgaches,  pp.  24,  54,  Paris,  1909).  It  is 
evident  that  neither  the  Malayan  words  for  "ivory"  (g&ding,  Javanese  gating)  and  "rhi- 
noceros-horn" (chulabadak  or  simply  chula),  nor  the  words  for  "elephant"  (gdjah,  Java- 
nese gajah)  and  "rhinoceros"  (badak,  Javanese  warak),  are  intended  here,  but  only  the 
color  names  ' '  white ' '  and  ' '  black , "  with  which  the  traders  distinguished  ivory  and  rhi- 


146  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

while  he  served  in  the  district  of  Nan-hai  (in  Kuang-tung),  had  occasion 
to  meet  there  a  captain  who  told  him  this  story:  'The  people  of  my 
country,  intent  on  capturing  a  rhinoceros,  proceed  to  erect  on  a  mountain- 
path  many  wooden  structures  like  watch-houses  or  posts  for  tethering 
animals.1  As  the  front  legs  of  the  animal  are  straight,  without  joints, 
it  is  in  the  habit  of  sleeping  by  leaning  against  a  tree.  The  rotten  timber 
will  suddenly  break  down,  and  the  animal  is  unable  to  rise.2  Another 

noceros-horn .  The  Malayan  word  badak  seems  to  cover  the  entire  Malayan  area  where 
the  rhinoceros  is  found;  it  occurs  on  Borneo  in  the  language  of  the  Dayak  (A.  HARDE- 
LAND,  Dajacksch-deutsches  Worterbuch,  p.  24,  Amsterdam,  1859),  and  on  Sumatra 
(M.  JOUSTRA,  Karo-Bataksch  Woordenboek,  p.  59,  Leiden,  1907).  Among  the 
Malayans,  the  rhinoceros-horn  (chula)  is  supposed  to  be  a  powerful  aphrodisiac;  and 
there  is  a  belief  in  a  species  of  "fiery"  rhinoceros  (badak  api)  which  is  excessively 
dangerous  when  attacked  (W.  W.  SKEAT,  Malay  Magic,  p.  150,  London,  1900).  The 
horn  is  carefully  preserved,  as  it  is  believed  to  be  possessed  of  medicinal  properties, 
and  is  highly  prized  by  the  Malays,  to  whom  the  Semang  generally  barter  it  for  to- 
bacco and  similar  commodities  (SKEAT  and  BLAGDEN,  Pagan  Races  of  the  Malay 
Peninsula,  Vol.  I,  p.  203,  London,  1906).  There  is  nothing  in  these  Malayan  beliefs 
showing  that  complex  series  of  ideas,  met  with  in  China.  They  may  be  a  weak  echo 
of  Chinese  notions  conveyed  by  Chinese  traders  bartering  among  them  for  the  horn. 

1  Chii  yi  (Nos.  2974  and  13,205).  I  do  not  know  but  this  may  have  to  be  taken  as  a 
compound  with  a  more  specific  technical  meaning.    The  two  PSn  ts'ao  have  changed 
this  unusual  term  into  "stables  for  swine  or  sheep."    There  is  no  doubt  of  what  is 
meant,  —  posts  of  rotten  timber,  which  will  easily  break  to  pieces  under  the  burden 
of  the  animal  leaning  toward  it. 

2  This  story  has  passed  also  into  the  Arabic  account  of  the  merchant-traveller 
Soleiman,  written  in  851  A.D.  (M.  REINAUD,  Relation  des  voyages  faits  par  les  Arabes 
et  les  Persans  dans  1'Inde  et  a  la  Chine,  Vol.  I,  p.  29,  Paris,  1845):    "The  kerkeden 
(rhinoceros)  has  no  articulation  in  the  knee,  nor  in  the  hand;  from  the  foot  up  to  the 
armpit  it  is  but  one  piece  of  flesh."     In  T'oung  Pao  (1913,  pp.  361-4)  the  historical 
importance  of  this  tradition  is  pointed  out  by  me  inasmuch  as  this  originally  In- 
dian story  has  migrated  also  to  the  West,  where  it  leaks  out  in  the  Greek  Physiologus 
(only  the  rhinoceros  is  replaced  by  the  elephant) ,  and  in  CAESAR'S  and  PLINY'S  stories 
of  the  elk.     I  wish  to  make  two  additions  to  these  remarks.    AELIAN  (Nat.  an.,  xyi, 
20),  describing  the  rhinoceros  of  India,  called  by  him  Kapr&favos,  asserts  that  its 
feet  have  no  joints  and  are  grown  together  like  the  feet  of  the  elephant  (TOUS  plv  ?r66as 
t5iapt9pa>7Toi;s    T«    teal     f/*<ptpcls    k\k<pavTt     avnirf<f>vKfvai:     ed.    of    F.    JACOBS).      This 
passage,  therefore,  confirms  my  former  conclusion  that  it  was  the  rhinoceros  which 
was  credited  in  India  with  jointless  legs;  but  we  see  that  the  same  notion  was  like- 
wise attached  to  the  elephant.    It  may  be  the  case,  accordingly,  that  the  elephant 
with  jointless  legs  was  borrowed  by  the  Physiologus  straight  from  India.    Mr.  W.  W. 
ROCKHILL  (Diplomatic  Audiences  at  the  Court  of  China,  p.  32,  London,  1905)  quotes 
a  statement  made  to  him  by  T.  WAITERS  on  the  kotow  question  with  reference  to 
Lord  Macartney's  embassy,  as  follows:    "It  was  an  opinion  universal,  and  was  told 
among  the  Chinese,  that  the  Kuei-tse  or  foreigner  was  not  built  up  like  the  jen  [that 
is,  man]  or  Chinaman,  and  particularly  that  he  had  no  joints  in  his  legs.    So  that,  if 
the  Kuei-tse  was  knocked  down  or  otherwise  put  on  the  ground,  he  could  not  rise 
again.    It  was  because  the  Emperor  did  not  want  to  have  possibly  a  death  or  at  any 
rate  an  unseemly  spectacle  that  he  waived  the  kotow."    Compare  also  Rubruck's 
story  of  "the  creatures  who  have  in  all  respects  human  forms,  except  that  their 
knees  do  not  bend,  so  that  they  get  along  by  some  kind  of  jumping  motion"  (W.  W. 
ROCKHILL,  The  Journey  of  William  of  Rubruck,  p.  199,  London,  1900).    The  fabulous 
notion  of  the  jointless  legs  of  the  rhinoceros  may  have  arisen  from  the  observation 
that  the  animal  is  indeed  in  the  habit  of  sleeping  in  a  standing  position.    Says  E. 
HELLER  (The  White  Rhinoceros,  p.  41),  "The  hot  hours  of  the  day  are  spent  by  the 
white  rhinoceros  sleeping  in  the  shade  of  the  scattered  clumps  of  trees  or  bushes  which 
dot  the  grassy  veldt.    They  seem  to  rest  indifferently,  either  lying  down  or  standing 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  147 

name  for  the  rhinoceros  is  nu  kio.  There  is  also  the  ch8n  ch'u,  which  is 
presumably  a  rhinoceros.  The  rhinoceros  has  three  hairs  growing  out  of 
each  pore.1  Liu  Hiao-Piao  asserts  that  the  rhinoceros  sheds  its  horn 
and  buries  it,  and  that  people  exchange  it  for  a  counterfeit  horn." 

The  story  alluded  to  in  the  latter  clause  is  better  worded  in  the 
Pin  ts'ao,  which  says,  "  It  is  told  also  that  the  rhinoceros  sheds  its  horn 
every  year,  and  itself  buries  it  in  the  mountains.  The  people  near  the 
sea,  with  all  secrecy,  make  wooden  horns,  and  exchange  these  for  the 
real  ones,  and  so  they  go  ahead  continually.  If  they  would  go  to  work 
openly,  the  animal  would  conceal  its  horns  in  another  place  and  defy 
any  search."  2 

Li  Sun,  who  wrote  an  account  of  the  drugs  of  southern  countries 
(Hai  yao  pen  ts'ao)  in  the  second  half  of  the  eighth  century,  expresses 
himself  in  these  words:  "The  rhinoceros  'communicating  with  the  sky,' 
during  the  time  of  pregnancy,  beholds  the  forms  of  things 3  passing 
across  the  sky,  and  these  are  reproduced  in  the  horn  of  the  embryo: 
hence  the  designation  ' communicating  with  the  sky.'  *  When  the  horn, 
placed  in  a  water-basin  during  a  moonlight  night,  reflects  the  brilliancy 
of  the  moon,  it  is  manifest  that  it  is  a  genuine  horn  'communicating 
with  the  sky.'  The  Wu  k*i  ki6  says,  'The  mountain-rhinoceros  lives 
on  bamboo  and  trees.  Its  urinating  is  not  completed  in  the  course  of  a 
day.  The  I  Liao 8  get  hold  of  it  by  means  of  bow  and  arrow.  This  is 


up  with  lowered  head.    When  at  rest  they  stand  with  their  noses  almost  touching  the 
ground,  their  heads  being  elevated  to  a  horizontal  position  only  when  alarmed." 

1  The  same  is  said  in  the  P&n  ts'ao  in  regard  to  the  seal  (compare  G.  SCHLEGEL, 
Toung  Pao,  Vol.  Ill,  1892,  p.  508).  Compare  p.  140. 

1  In  the  text  of  the  Ch&ng  lei  p£n  ts'ao,  Su  Sung  terminates,  "  I  do  not  know  wheth- 
er at  present  they  take  horns  in  this  manner  or  not."  Compare  the  account  of  Ko 
Hung,  p.  139. 

•The  Ch&ng  lei  p$n  ts'ao  reads  "the  destiny  of  things"  (wu  ming)  instead  of 
"forms  of  things"  (wu  king). 

*  In  the  notes  embodied  in  the  Pdn  ts'ao  regarding  the  elephant  (Ch.  51  A,  p.  4) 
it  is  said  that  the  patterns  in  the  horn  are  formed  while  the  rhinoceros  gazes  at  the 
moon,  and  that  the  designs  spring  forth  in  the  tusks  of  the  elephant  while  the  animal 
hears  the  thunder.  A  work  Wu  Ung  hui  yuan,  as  quoted  in  P'ei  w&n  yunfu  (Ch.  21, 
p.  113  b),  similarly  says  that  the  rhinoceros,  while  enjoying  the  moonlight,  produces 
the  designs  in  its  horn,  and  that  the  floral  decorations  enter  the  tusks  of  the  elephant 
when  it  has  been  frightened  by  thunder.  These  passages  prove  that  it  is  material 
heaven  to  whose  influence  the  formation  of  the  natural  veins  in  horn  and  tusk  is 
ascribed.  The  rhinoceros  gazing  at  the  moon  is  represented  in  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'ing 
(Fig.  10). 

6  A  work  listed  in  the  Tai  P'ing  yu  Ian  as  being  published  in  983;  but,  as  it  is 
quoted  here  by  Li  Sun,  it  must  have  existed  in  or  before  the  eighth  century. 

8  An  aboriginal  tribe  belonging  to  the  stock  of  the  Man,  according  to  T'ang  shu 
(Ch.  43  A,  p.  6  b)  settled  in  Ku  chou  (PLAYFAIR,  No.  3256)  in  the  province  of  Kuei- 
chou.  Compare  p.  82  in  regard  to  the  possibility  of  killing  a  rhinoceros  with  arrows. 


148  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

the  so-called  rhinoceros  of  K'ien.' l  The  I  wu  chi2  says,  'In  the  sea- 
water  of  Shan-tung  there  is  a  bull  that  delights  in  the  sounds  of  string  and 
wind  instruments.  When  the  people  make  music,  this  bull  leaves  the 
water  to  listen  to  it,  and  at  that  moment  they  capture  it.' 3  The  rhino- 
ceros has  a  horn  on  its  nose,  and  another  on  the  crown  of  its  head.  The 
nose-horn  is  the  one  best  esteemed.  The  natural  histories  (pen  ts'ao) 
are  acquainted  only  with  the  mountain-rhinoceros.  I  have  not  yet  seen 
the  water-rhinoceros."  4 

K'ou  Tsung-shi,  a  celebrated  physician  of  the  Sung  period,  reports  in 
his  Pen  ts'ao  yen  i  (completed  in  1 1 16)5  thus:  " The  designs  in  the  horns 
of  the  river-rhinoceros  and  the  southern  rhinoceros  are  fine.  The 
black  rhinoceros-horn  has  designs  clearly  displayed,  while  the  yellow 
rhinoceros-horn  has  very  sparse  designs.  None  equals  the  patterns  in 
the  horn  of  the  Tibetan  breed,  which  are  high,  and  come  out  clearly  at 
both  ends.6  If  the  forms  of  objects  pictured  in  the  horn  are  yellow,  while 
the  rest  is  black,  the  horn  is  'standard  color  throughout'  (cheng  t'ou). 
If  the  forms  of  objects  are  black,  while  the  rest  is  yellow,  the  horn  is 
'inverted  throughout'  (tao  t'ou).  If  the  black  color  is  taken  as  stand- 
ard, and  the  forms  of  the  design  are  imitative  of  real  objects,  the  horn  is 
a  treasure;  this  horn  is  styled  t'ung  si  ('penetrating  rhinoceros').  It 
is  an  indispensable  condition  that  the  patterns  come  out  clearly,  and 
that  the  yellow  and  black  be  sharply  differentiated.  If  both  ends  are 
moist  and  smooth,  the  horn  is  of  the  first  quality."  7 

1  The  territory  of  the  province  of  Kuei-chou,  where  the  rhinoceros  formerly 
occurred,  as  already  attested  by  Su  Sung  (above,  p.  140). 

2  Several  works  of  this  title  were  in  existence  (see  BRETSCHNEIDER,  Bot.  Sin., 
pt.  i,  p.  154). 

*  The  animal  in  question  is  certainly  not  a  rhinoceros,  and  has  crept  in  here  by 
way  of  wrong  analogy.  In  his  notes  on  cattle,  Li  Shi-chen  mentions  a  variety  "ma- 
rine ox"  (hat  niu,  Ch.  51  A,  p.  7  a).  This  creature  is  described  after  the  Ts'i  ti  ki  by 
Fu  Ch'en  of  the  fifth  century  or  earlier  (BRETSCHNEIDER,  Bot.  Sin.,  pt.  i,  p.  201)  as 
follows:  "Its  habitat  is  around  the  islands  in  the  sea  near  Teng-chou  fu  (in  Shan- 
tung); in  shape  it  resembles  an  ox,  it  has  the  feet  of  an  alligator  (t'o  No.  11,397,  n°t 
iguana,  as  GILES  still  translates,  despite  the  correction  of  E.  v.  ZACH,  China  Review, 
Vol.  XXIV,  1900,  p.  197),  and  the  hair  of  a  bull-head  fish.  Its  skin  is  soft,  and  can 
be  turned  to  manifold  purposes;  its  blubber  is  good  to  burn  in  lamps."  The  marine 
ox,  accordingly,  must  be  an  aquatic  mammal  of  the  suborder  of  Pinnipedia  (seals). 
There  may  be  a  grain  of  truth  in  the  above  story :  the  intelligence  of  seals  is  remark- 
able, they  are  easily  tamed  and  susceptible  to  music.  There  is  an  interesting  chapter 
on  tamed  seals  in  the  classical  treatise  of  K.  E.  v.  BAER,  Anatomische  und  zoologische 
Untersuchungen  uber  das  Wallross  (Mimoires  de  I'Acad.  imp.  des  sciences  de  St. 
Peter  sbourg,  6th  series,  Vol.  IV,  1838,  pp.  150-159). 

4  The  last  clause  is  not  in  the  text  of  Cheng  lei  pin  ts'ao. 

4  PELLIOT  (Bulletin  de  I' Ecole  franfaise  d' Extreme-Orient,  Vol.  IX,  1909,  p.  217). 

4  The  rhinoceros  of  Tibet  has  been  discussed  above,  p.  116. 

7  The  Arabic  authors  assert  that  the  interior  of  the  Indian  rhinoceros-horn  fre- 
quently presents  designs  of  a  human  figure,  a  peacock,  or  fish,  and  that  the  price  paid 
in  China  is  raised  according  to  the  beauty  of  these  designs  (M.  REINAUD,  Relation 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  149 

Li  Shi-chSn  himself,  the  author  of  the  Phi  ts'ao  kang  mu,  sums  up  as 
follows:  "The  habitat  of  the  rhinoceros  is  in  the  regions  of  the  Si  Fan,1 
the  southern  Tibetan  tribes  (Nan  Fan),  the  southern  portions  of  Yun- 
nan, and  in  Kiao-chou,  and  occurs  there  everywhere.  There  are  three 
species, —  the  mountain-rhinoceros,  the  water-rhinoceros,  and  the  se  si. 
There  is,  further,  a  hairy  rhinoceros  resembling  the  mountain-rhinoceros, 
and  living  in  hilly  forests;  great  numbers  of  it  are  captured  by  men. 
The  water-rhinoceros  makes  its  permanent  abode  in  water,  and  is  there- 
fore very  difficult  to  capture.  It  has,  in  all,  two  horns.  The  horn 
on  its  nose  is  long,  that  on  its  forehead  is  short.  The  skin  of  the  water- 
rhinoceros  has  a  pearl-like  armor,2  but  not  so  the  mountain-rhinoceros. 


des  voyages  faits  par  les  Arabes,  Vol.  I,  p.  29).  REINAUD  (Vol.  II,  pp.  68,  69)  com- 
ments on  this  point  that  the  Chinese  are  satisfied  to  compare  the  designs  with  flowers 
and  millet-seeds,  and  do  not  discover  in  them  half  of  the  things  which  the  Arabs  saw 
in  them.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  Arabs,  in  this  case,  merely  reproduce  the  ideas  of  the 
Chinese.  The  philosophy  of  these  designs  was  fully  developed  in  the  T'ang  period. 
K'ou  Tsung-shi  speaks  of  real  objects  visible  in  the  horn;  and  Wang  P'i-chi,  in  his 
Shtng  shui  yen  fan  lu  (p.  135),  offers  an  elaborate  contribution  to  this  question.  Ac- 
cording to  him,  "the  designs  in  the  horn  from  Kiao-chi  are  like  hemp-seeds,  the  horn 
being  dry,  a  bit  warm,  and  glossy;  the  horn  imported  on  ships  and  coming  from  the 
Arabs  has  patterns  like  chu  yii  flowers  [this  name  applies  to  three  different  plants: 
BRETSCHNEIDER,  Bot.  Sin.,  pt.  2,  No.  498],  is  glossy  and  brilliant  with  colors,  some 
resembling  dog-noses,  as  if  they  were  glossed  with  fat;  others  with  floral  designs 
and  strange  objects,  these  horns  being  styled  t'ung  t'ien  si;  some  like  sun  and  stars, 
others  like  clouds  and  moon;  some  like  the  corolla  of  a  flower,  some  like  scenery; 
some  have  birds  and  mammals,  others  dragons  and  fishes;  some  have  deities,  others 
palaces;  and  there  are  even  costume  and  cap,  eyes  and  eyebrows,  staff  and  footgear 
[conveying  the  illusion  of  the  picture  of  a  wanderer],  beasts,  birds,  and  fishes.  When 
the  horn  is  completed  into  a  carving,  as  if  it  were  a  veritable  picture,  it  is  highly 
esteemed  by  the  people.  The  prices  are  fluctuating,  and  it  is  unknown  how  they 
are  conditioned."  There  is  assuredly  an  inward  relation  between  the  statements  of 
this  account  and  the  Arabic  texts  of  Damlrt  quoted  by  REINAUD  (Vol.  II,  p.  69). 
It  is  hardly  necessary  to  insist  on  the  chronological  point  that  Damlrl  (1344-1405) 
wrote  his  zoological  dictionary  Hayat  el-haiwan  (C.  HUART,  Litt^rature  arabe, 
P-  365,  Paris,  1902)  several  centuries  after  Wang  P'i-chi  (end  of  eleventh  century). 
From  a  psychological  point  of  view,  the  dependence  of  the  Arabs  in  this  matter  on  the 
philosophy  of  the  Chinese  is  self-evident.  Neither  the  classical  world  nor  ancient 
India  has  developed  any  similar  thoughts ;  and  this  subject  is  decidedly  Chinese,  with 
a  strong  Taoist  flavor  of  nature  sentiment.  It  must  not  be  overlooked,  either,  that 
al-Berunl  (SACHAU,  Alberuni's  India,  Vol.  I,  p.  204)  merely  states  that  "the  shaft  of 
the  horn  is  black  inside,  and  white  everywhere  else,"  and  that  h'?  is  entirely  reticent 
about  figures  in  the  horn.  The  Arabs  interested  in  the  trade  of  the  horn  to  China 
imbibed  this  lesson,  and  propagated  it  themselves  in  catering  to  the  taste  of  their 
customers.  The  question  is  whether,  in  the  interest  of  the  business,  they  did  not  help 
nature  by  art,  and  may  have  produced  several  of  the  more  fanciful  designs  artificially. 
This,  however,  is  no  matter  of  great  concern;  and  the  fact  remains  that  bristly  fibres 
of  various  tinges  compose  the  horn,  and  result  in  a  natural  play  of  design  and  color 
which  is  apt  to  arouse  the  imaginative  power  of  a  susceptible  mind. 

I  Western  Tibetan  tribes;  from  our  standpoint,  eastern  Tibetans. 

I 1  take  this  to  be  identical  with  what  our  zoologists  say  in  regard  to  the  skin  of 
the  Asiatic  species,  which  "has  the  appearance  of  a  rigid  armor  studded  with  tuber- 
cles."    The  whole  skin  of  the  Javan  species,  as  already  remarked  by  B.  CUVIER 
(The  Animal  Kingdom,  Vol.  I,  p.  157,  London,  1834),  is  covered  with  small  compact 
angular  tubercles.    JOANNES  RAIUS  (Synopsis  methodica  animalium  quadrupedum, 
p.  122,  Londini,  1693)  describes  the  skin  of  the  rhinoceros  thus:  "Auriculae  porcinae, 


150  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

The  se  si  is  the  female  of  the  rhinoceros  which  is  termed  also  'sand- 
rhinoceros.'  It  has  but  a  single  horn  on  the  crown  of  the  head.  The 
natural  designs  of  the  horn  are  smooth,  white,  and  clearly  differentiated, 
but  it  is  useless  as  medicine,  for  the  patterns  on  the  horn  of  the  male  are 
big,  those  on  the  horn  of  the  female  too  fine.  In  the  beginning  of  the 
period  Hung-wu  (1368-1398)  Kiu-chen1  sent  one  as  tribute,  which  was 
called  one-horned  (monoceros)  rhinoceros.  The  view  of  Ch'£n  Ts'ang- 
k'i  that  there  are  not  the  two  kinds  of  land  and  water  animals,  the  view 
of  Kuo  P'o  that  the  rhinoceros  has  three  horns,  and  the  view  of  Su  Sung 
that  the  hairy  rhinoceros  is  the  male  rhinoceros,  are  all  erroneous. 
The  term  'hairy  rhinoceros'  is  at  present  applied  to  the  yak.2  The 
designs  of  the  rhinoceros-horn  are  like  fish-roe.  On  account  of  their 
shape  they  are  styled  'grain  patterns.' 3  Inside  of  the  latter  there  are 
eyes,  styled  'grain  eyes.'  If  yellow  decorations  rise  from  a  black  back- 
ground, the  horn  is  'standard  throughout.'  If  black  decorations  rise 
from  a  yellow  background,  the  horn  is  'inverted  throughout.'  If 
within  the  decorations  there  are  again  other  decorations,  the  horn  is 
'double  throughout.'  The  general  designation  for  these  is  t'ung  si, 
and  they  are  of  the  highest  grade.  If  the  decorations  are  spotted,  as  it 
were,  with  pepper  and  beans,  the  horns  are  middle  grade.  The  horn  of 
the  black  rhinoceros,  which  is  of  a  uniform  black  color  and  devoid  of 
decorations,  is  the  lowest  grade.4  If  the  horn  of  the  rhinoceros  'com- 
municating with  the  sky '  emits  light,  so  that  it  can  be  seen  at  night,  it  is 

molli  et  tenui  cute  vestitae;  reliquum  corpus  dura  admodum  et  crassa,  velut  squamis 
quibusdam  crustaceis  rotundis  aspera."  This  is  the  reason  why  in  some  Chinese  and 
early  European  sketches  the  ^  animal  is  covered  with  scales  (see  Figs.  3  and  II,  and 
Plate  IX). 

1  PLAYFAIR,  No.  1295  (1278):  in  Annam  (compare  above,  p.  81). 

2  Li  Shi-ch6n  refers  to  the  notes  on  this  subject  contained  in  the  same  chapter. 
This  remark  renders  it  plain  that  it  was  the  notion  of  "rhinoceros"  which  was  trans- 
ferred in  recent  times  to  the  yak,  and  that  the  development  was  not  in  the  reverse 
order,  as  assumed  by  Professor  Giles. 

$  This  and  the  following  sentences,  commenting  on  the  natural  designs  of  the 
horn,  have  been  translated  by  S.  JULIEN  (in  M.  REINAUD,  Relation  des  voyages  faits 
par  les  Arabes,  Vol.  II,  p.  68). 

4  In  the  Memoirs  on  the  Customs  of  Cambodja  by  Chou  Ta-kuan  of  the  Yuan 
period,  translated  by  P.  PELLIOT  (Bulletin  de  I'Ecole  jranqaise  d 'Extreme-Orient,  Vol.  II, 
1902,  p.  167),  it  is  said  that  the  white  and  veined  rhinoceros-horn  is  the  most  es- 
teemed kind,  and  that  the  inferior  quality  is  black.  The  List  of  Medicines  exported 
from  Hankow,  published  by  the  Imperial  Maritime  Customs  (p.  15,  Shanghai,  1888), 
is  therefore  wrong  in  stating  that  the  black  and  pointed  horns  are  considered  the  best. 
A  valuation  for  the  horn  is  not  given  there.  According  to  a  report  of  Consul-General 
G.  E.  ANDERSON  of  Hongkong  (Daily  Consular  and  Trade  Reports,  1913,  p.  1356), 
rhinoceros-horns  are  imported  into  Hongkong  to  some  extent,  the  price  ranging  from 
$360  to  $460  per  picul,  or  from  about  $1.30  to  $1.65  gold  per  pound;  they  are  largely 
of  African  production,  and  imported  from  Bombay.  According  to  L.  DE  REINACH 
(Le  Laos,  Paris,  no  date,  p.  271),  rhinoceros-horns  have  in  the  territory  of  the  Laos 
a  market- value  of  1 1 1-137  fr-  the  kilo,  and  rhinoceros-skins  60-70  fr.  a  hundred  kilo. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  151 

called  'horn  shining  at  night'  (ye  ming  si}:1  hence  it  can  communicate 
with  the  spirits,  and  open  a  way  through  the  water.  Birds  and  mammals 
are  frightened  at  seeing  it.  The  Shan  hai  king  speaks  of  white  rhino- 


1  This  idea  may  have  been  borrowed  from  the  precious  stones  believed  to  shine 
at  night  (HiRTH,  China  and  the  Roman  Orient,  pp.  242-244;  CHAVANNES,  Les  pays 
d'occident  d'apres  le  Heou  Han  Chou,  T'oung  Pao,  1907,  p.  181).  Jade  disks  shining 
at  night  (ye  kuang  pi)  are  mentioned  in  Shi  ki  (Ch.  87,  p.  2  b).  The  note  of  Li  Shi- 
ch£n  is  doubtless  suggested  by  the  following  passage  of  the  Tu  yang  tsa  pien,  written 
by  Su  Ngo  in  the  latter  part  of  the  ninth  century  (WvLiE,  Notes  on  Chin.  Lit., 
p.  194 ;ed.  otPaihai,  Ch.  B,  p.  9, or  P'ei w$n  yun  fu,  Ch.  8, p.  87 b):  " In  the  first  year 
of  the  period  Pao-li  (825  A.D.)  of  the  Emperor  King-tsung  of  the  T'ang  dynasty,  the 
country  of  Nan-ch'ang  [in  Kiang-si;  PLAYFAIR,  No.  4562]  offered  to  the  Court  a  rhi- 
noceros-horn shining  at  night  (ye  ming  si).  In  shape  it  was  like  the  'horn  com- 
municating with  the  sky.'  At  night  it  emitted  light,  so  that  a  space  of  a  hundred 
paces  was  illuminated.  Manifold  silk  wrappers  laid  around  it  could  not  hide  its 
luminous  power.  The  Emperor  ordered  it  to  be  cut  into  slices,  and  worked  up  into 
a  girdle;  and  whenever  he  went  out  on  a  hunting-expedition,  he  saved  candle-light 
at  night."  We  even  hear  of  a  luminous  pillow  (ye  ming  chtri)  lighting  an  entire  room 
at  night  ( Yun  sien  tsa  shi,  Ch.  6,  p.  3  b,  in  T'ang  Sung  ts'ung  shu,  which  quotes  from 
K'ai-yuan  T'ien-pao  i  shi).  The  story  of  Tu  yang  tsa  pien  may  be  connected  with  the 
curious  tradition  regarding  WSn  K'iao  (Tsin  shu,  Ch.  67,  p.  5),  who  by  the  alleged 
light  emitted  from  a  rhinoceros-horn  beheld  the  supernatural  monsters  in  the  water 
(see  P&TILLON,  Allusions  litte"raires,  p.  227;  S.  LOCKHART,  A  Manual  of  Chinese 
Quotations,  p.  280;  and  GILES,  Dictionary,  p.  794  b,  —  who  translate  'to  light  a  rhi- 
noceros-horn,' which  is  not  possible,  as  in  this  case  the  horn  would  burn  down ;  the  horn 
was  shining  through  its  alleged  own  light) .  An  illustration  of  this  scene  by  Ting  Yun- 
p'fing  is  published  in  Ch'eng  shi  mo  yuan  and  Fang  shi  mo  p'u.  The  notion  that  the 
rhinoceros-horn  is  luminous  at  night,  and  is  therefore  styled  "shining  or  bright  horn" 
(ming  si,  or  kuang  ming  si),  and  also  "shadow horn"  (ying  si),  is  found  in  Tung  ming  ki 
(Wu-ch'ang  print,  Ch.  2,  p.  2),  embodied  in  a  fabulous  report  on  a  country  Fei-lo,  said 
to  be  nine  thousand  li  from  Ch'ang-ngan  in  Indo-China  (Ji-nan).  This  work  relating 
to  the  time  of  the  Han  Emperor  Wu,  though  purported  to  have  been  written  by  Kuo 
Hien  of  the  Han,  is  one  of  the  many  spurious  productions  of  the  Leu-ch'ao  period 
(fourth  or  fifth  century),  and  teeming  with  anachronisms  and  gross  inventions;  some 
accounts  in  it  are  interesting,  but  devoid  of  historical  value  (see  WYLIE,  Notes, 
p.  1 9 1 ) .  The  assertion  there' made,  that  the  inhabitants  of  Fei-lo  drive  in  carriages  drawn 
by  rhinoceros  and  elephant,  is  very  suspicious;  but  the  report  that  the  horns  sent  from 
there  were  plaited  into  a  mat,  the  designs  of  which  had  the  appearance  of  reticulated 
silk  brocade,  is  probably  not  fictitious;  for  this  is  confirmed  by  a  passage  of  the 
T'ang  Annals  (Chapter  wu  king  chi,  quoted  in  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'&ng),  according  to  which 
a  certain  Chang  Yi-chi  had  a  mat  made  for  his  mother  from  rhinoceros-horn.  Since 
the  latter  (the  designation  "horn,"  from  a  scientific  standpoint,  is  a  misnomer)  is 
composed  of  agglutinated  hair  or  bristles,  it  is  possible  to  dissolve  a  horn  into  thread- 
like fibres;  and  the  possibility  of  a  technique  employing  these  for  the  plaiting  of  mats 
must  be  admitted. 

1  According  to  the  more  precise  wording  of  the  passage,  as  quoted  in  P'ei  wen 
yun  fu  (Ch.  8,  p.  88  a),  the  white  rhinoceros  occurs  in  the  mountains  of  Kin-ku, 
inhabited  by  large  numbers  of  other  wild  animals,  also  hogs  and  deer.  The  Shan  hai 
king  is  an  apocryphal  work  teeming  with  fables,  and  has  little  value  for  scientific 
purposes.  The  P'ei  wen  yun  fu,  further,  quotes  the  Tung  kuan  Han  ki  (completed 
about  170  A.D.;  BRETSCHNEIDER,  Bot.  Sin.,  pt.  i,  No.  990)  to  the  effect  that  in  the 
first  year  of  the  period  Yuan-ho  (84  A.D.)  of  the  Emperor  Chang  of  the  Han  dynasty 
the  country  Ji-nan  (Tonking)  offered  to  the  Court  a  white  pheasant  and  a  white  rhi- 
noceros. But  this  text,  unreservedly  accepted  by  HIRTH  (Das  weisse  Rhinoceros,  T'oung 
Pao,  Vol.  V,  1894,  p.  392),  must  be  taken  with  some  caution,  as  it  is  identical  with, 
and  apparently  derived  from,  the  passage  in  Hou  Han  shu  (Ch.  1 16,  p.  3  b),  according 
to  which,  in  the  first  year  of  the  period  Yuan-ho  (84  A.D.),  the  Man  I  beyond  the 
boundary  of  Ji-nan  offered  to  the  Court  a  live  rhinoceros  and  a  white  pheasant.  The 


1 52  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

"The  work  K'ai-yiian  i  ski 1  mentions  the '  cold-dispelling'  rhinoceros- 
horn  (pi  han  si),  whose  color  is  golden,  and  which  was  sent  as  tribute  by 
Tonking  (Kiao-chi)  ,2  During  the  winter  months  it  spreads  warmth, 
which  imparts  a  genial  feeling  to  man.  The  Po  k'ung  leu  t'ie 3  speaks 
of  the  'heat-dispelling'  rhinoceros-horn  (pi  shu  si)  obtained  by  the 
Emperor  Wen-tsung  (827-840  A.D.)  of  the  T'ang  dynasty.4  During 
the  summer  months  it  can  cool  off  the  hot  temperature.  The  Ling 
piao  lu  ib  records  the  horn  of  the  'dust-dispelling'  rhinoceros  (pi  ch'en 
si),  from  which  hairpins,  combs,  and  girdle-plaques  are  made,  with  the 
effect  that  dust  keeps  aloof  from  the  body.  The  Tu  yang  tsa  pien6 

text  of  the  official  Annals  is  decisive,  and  it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  word  "live"  could 
have  been  altered  into  "white"  by  the  suggestion  of  the  white  pheasant.  The  T'ang 
leu  tien,  a  description  of  the  administrative  organization  of  the  period  K'ai-yuan 
(713-741)  of  the  T'ang  dynasty,  ascribed  to  the  Emperor  Yuan-tsung  (compare 
PELLIOT,  Bulletin  de  I'Ecole  franc, aise  <T Extreme-Orient,  Vol.  Ill,  1903,  p.  668),  says 
that  "the  white  rhinoceros  (pai  se)  is  an  auspicious  omen  of  the  first  order"  (shang 
jui;  quoted  in  Yen  kien  lei  han,  Ch.  410,  p.  17  b).  But  as  most  of  the  creatures 
appearing  in  the  category  of  such  "auspicious  omens "  are  imaginary,  it  is  more  than 
probable  that  this  white  rhinoceros  owes  its  existence  to  pure  fancy.  The  white 
rhinoceros,  therefore,  does  not  rest  on  good  evidence;  and  I  am  not  convinced  that 
the  Chinese  were  ever  acquainted  with  such  a  variety.  Moreover,  the  so-called  White 
or  Square-nosed  Rhinoceros  (Rhinoceros  simus  cottoni)  has  not  yet  been  traced  in 
Asia,  but  is  restricted  to  Africa.  It  is  described  and  illustrated  by  A.  NEWTON 
(Proceedings  of  the  Zoological  Soc.  of  London,  Vol.  I,  1903,  pp.  222-224;  see  ibid., 
Vol.11, 1903,  p.  i94),R.  LYDEKKER  (The  Game  Animals  of  Africa,  p.  38,  London,  1908), 
and  E.  L.  TROUESSART  (Le  Rhinoceros  blanc  du  Soudan,  Proceedings  etc.,  1909, 
pp.  198-200,  3  plates).  A  fine  monograph  is  devoted  to  it  by  E.  HELLER,  The  White 
Rhinoceros  (Smithsonian  Misc.  Collections,  Vol.  61,  No.  i,  Washington,  1913,  31 
plates),  embodying  the  results  of  Colonel  Roosevelt's  African  expedition.  As  to  the 
"white"  color,  Mr.  Heller  observes,  "The  skins  cannot  under  the  most  lenient  cir- 
cumstances be  classed  as  white.  They  are,  however,  distinctly  lighter  than  those  of 
the  black  species,  and  may  on  this  account  be  allowed  to  retain  their  popular  designa- 
tion of  white.  Their  true  color  is  smoke  gray  of  Ridgway,  a  color  conspicuously  lighter 
than  the  dark  clove-brown  of  their  geographical  ally,  Diceros  bicornis." 

1  Matters  omitted  in  the  Annals  of  the  Reign  of  K'ai-yiian  (713-742)  by  Wang 
J£n-yu,  written  during  the  Wu-tai  period  (907-960);  see  BRETSCHNEIDER,  Bot.  Sin., 
pt.  i,  p.  156. 

1  The  text  is  quoted  in  P'ei  wen  yiinfu  (Ch.  8,  p.  87  b)  as  follows:  "The  country 
of  Tonking  sent  a  rhinoceros-horn  of  golden  color,  which  was  placed  in  a  golden  pan 
in  a  hall  of  the  palace;  the  warmth  caused  by  it  was  felt  by  every  one;  the  envoy  said 
that  it  was  the  cold-dispelling  rhinoceros-horn." 

1  The  complete  title  runs  T'ang  Sung  Po  k'ung  leu  t'ie;  it  is  a  cyclopasdia  in  100 
chapters  arranged  according  to  subject-matters  dealing  with  affairs  of  the  T'ang  and 
Sung  periods  (Ming  edition  in  John  Crerar  Library,  No.  786,  in  96  vols.). 

4  The  exact  text  is  given  in  P'ei  wen  yun  fu.  A  sceptre  of  auspicious  augury 
(Ju  i),  made  from  a  "heat-dispelling  horn"  in  the  possession  of  the  same  emperor,  is 
mentioned  in  Tu  yang  tsa  pien  (Ch.  B,  p.  12;  see  note  6).  Another  Ju  i  of  ordinary 
rhinoceros-horn  is  spoken  of  in  Yun  sien  tsa  shi  (Ch.  3,  p.  5  b;  ed.  of  T'ang  Sung 
ts'ung  shu). 
6  See  p.  142. 

*  An  account  of  rare  and  curious  objects  brought  to  China  from  foreign  countries 
from  763  to  872,  by  Su  Ngo  in  the  latter  part  of  the  ninth  century  (BRETSCHNEIDER, 
/.  c.,  p.  204;  WYLIE,  Notes  on  Chin.  Lit.,  p.  194).  According  to  the  passage  in  the 
original  text  (ed.  of  Pai  hai,  Ch.  c,  p.  9  b),  this  girdle  was  in  the  possession  of  the 


HISTORY  or  THE  RHINOCEROS  153 

refers  to  the  'wrath-removing'  rhinoceros-horn  (kiian,  No.  3i4i,/2w  si), 
from  which  girdles  are  made,  causing  men  to  abandon  their  anger; 
these  are  scarce  and  veritable  treasures." 

These  extracts,  ranging  from  the  fifth  to  the  sixteenth  century,  leave 
no  doubt  that  during  this  interval  the  two  words  se  and  si  invariably 
referred  to  the  rhinoceros,  that  the  two  species  of  the  single-horned  and 
two-horned  animal  were  recognized,  that  their  geographical  distribution 
was  perfectly  and  correctly  known,1  and  that  the  main  characteristics 
of  the  animal  were  seized  upon.  Among  these,  the  horn  naturally 
attracted  widest  attention,  and  in  most  cases  was  the  only  part  of  the 
animal  that  came  within  the  experience  of  the  writers.  The  wondrous 
lore  surrounding  the  horn,  the  supernatural  qualities  attributed  to  it, 
led  also  to  fabulous  stories  regarding  the  animal  itself,  which  in  the  midst 
of  impenetrable  forests  was  seldom  exposed  to  the  eye  of  an  observer. 
A  lengthy  dissertation  on  the  healing  properties  of  the  horn,  and  on  its 
utilization  in  prescriptions,  is  added  in  the  Ptn  ts'ao  kang  mu;  but  this 
matter  has  no  direct  relation  to  our  subject.2 

Princess  T'ung-ch'ang,  and  consisted  of  small  balls  turned  from  horn,  as  shown  by 
the  description  that  they  were  round  like  the  clay  pellets  used  in  shooting  with  the 
bow  tan  (No.  10,603).  These  bows,  a  combination  of  a  sling  with  a  bow,  are  still 
turned  out  in  Peking,  and  used  in  slaying  birds,  to  prevent  the  plumage  from  being 
damaged.  In  India  they  are  known  as  goolail  (YULE  and  BURNELL,  Hobson-Jobson, 
p.  386),  and  are  chiefly  employed  for  exterminating  crows,  being  capable  of  inflicting 
severe  injuries.  Every  ethnologist  is  familiar  with  these  sling-bows  or  pellet-bows, 
as  they  are  called,  and  with  the  difficult  problem  presented  by  their  geographical  dis- 
tribution over  India,  south-eastern  Asia,  and  in  the  valley  of  the  Amazon  in  South 
America  (compare  G.  ANTZE,  in  Jahrbuch  des  Museums  fur  Volkerkunde  zu  Leipzig, 
Vol.  Ill,  1908,  pp.  79-95;  and  W.  HOUGH,  Am.  Anthr.,  1912,  p.  42).  It  is  further 
added  in  the  Tu  yang,  that  this  horn,  when  placed  in  the  ground,  does  not  rot, — a 
notion  presumably  originated  by  occasional  finds  of  fossil  horns  or  those  acciden- 
tally shed  by  the  animal. 

1  The  case  is  certainly  such  that  the  zoologist,  as  in  so  many  other  cases,  is  obliged 
to  learn  from  the  historian  in  regard  to  the  distribution  of  animals  in  former  periods 
of  history.  Our  zoogeographers  trace  the  area  of  the  two-horned  rhinoceros  to  Suma- 
tra, Borneo,  Siam,  and  the  Malay  Peninsula,  and  from  there  extending  northward 
through  Burma  and  Tenasserim  to  Chittagong  and  Assam.  Our  investigation  has 
taught  us  that  it  covered  in  ancient  times  a  much  wider  geographical  zone,  including 
Cambodja,  Annam,  and  southern  China,  in  particular  Kuei-chou,  Hu-nan,  Yun-nan, 
and  Sze-ch'uan. 

1  The  theory  of  Ko  Hung  or  Pao-p'u-tse  of  the  fourth  century,  as  shown  above 
(P-  J39).  is  that  the  horn  can  neutralize  poison,  because  the  animal  devours  all  sorts 
of  vegetable  poisons  with  its  food.  Li  Shi-chen  states  that  the  horn  is  non-poisonous, 
and  is  forestalled  in  this  opinion  by  T'ang  Shen-wei.  Shavings  of  the  horn,  the  decoc- 
tion of  which  is  taken  in  fever,  small-pox,  ophthalmia,  etc.,  are  still  to  be  had  in  all 
Chinese  drug-stores.  A  specimen  obtained  by  me  at  Hankow  was  said  to  come  from 
Tibet.  According  to  S.  W.  WILLIAMS  (The  Chinese  Commercial  Guide,  p.  95,  Hong- 
kong, 1863),  a  decoction  of  the  horn  shavings  is  given  to  women  just  before  parturi- 
tion and  also  to  frightened  children.  As  stated  by  the  same  author,  the  skin  of 
the  animal  is  likewise  employed  in  medicine.  It  is  made  into  a  jelly  which  is  highly 
esteemed,  and  the  same  is  done  with  the  feet  (SOUBEIRAN  and  THIERSANT,  La  ma- 
tiere  m^dicale  chez  les  Chinois,  p.  47,  Paris,  1874).  This  practice  presumably 
originated  in  Siam.  Monseigneur  PALLEGOIX  (Description  du  royaume  Thai  ou 


i$4  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

The  word  se  is  presumably  the  older  of  the  two,  as  the  ancient 
Chinese  seem  to  have  been  first  acquainted  with  this  species,  while  it 
was  still  alive  in  their  country;  at  a  somewhat  later  time,  which,  how- 
ever, still  ranged  in  a  prehistoric  period,  they  became  familiar  with  the 
two-horned  si.  This  theory  would  account  for  the  statement  of  Li 
Shi-che'n  that  the  ancients  were  fond  of  saying  se,  while  later  on  people 
inclined  toward  the  word  si;  and  that  in  the  north  (the  ancient  habitat 
of  the  se)  the  word  se  prevailed,  in  the  south  the  word  5*.  This  came  about 

Siam,  Vol.  I,  p.  156)  reports  the  following:  "On  attribue  beaucoup  de  vertus  a  sa 
come,  et  (chose  singuliere!)  sa  peau,  quelque  6paisse  et  coriace  qu'  elle  soit,  est  re- 
garde"e  comme  un  mets  d&icat  et  fortifiant  pour  les  personnes  faibles.  On  grille 
d'abord  la  peau,  on  la  ratisse,  on  la  coupe  en  morceaux  et  on  la  fait  bouillir  avec  des 
Apices  assez  longtemps  pour  la  convertir  en  matiere  gelatineuse  et  transparente. 
J  en  ai  mange'  plusieurs  fois  avec  plaisir,  et  je  pense  qu'on  pourrait  appliquer  avec 
succes  le  meme  proceed  auxpeaux  de  quelques  autres  animaux."  The  skin,  as  well 
as  the  horn,  the  blood,  and  the  teeth,  were  medicinally  employed  in  Cambodja, 
notably  against  heart-diseases  (A.  CABATON,  Breve  et  v6ridique  relation  des  eV6ne- 
ments  du  Cambodge  par  Gabriel  Quiroga  de  San  Antonio,  p.  94,  Paris,  1914).  In 
Japan  rhinoceros-horn  is  powdered  and  used  as  a  specific  in  fever  cases  of  all  kinds 
(E.  W.  CLEMENT,  Japanese  Medical  Folk-lore,  Transactions  As.  Soc.  of  Japan, 
Vol.  XXXV,  1907,  p.  20).  Ko  Hung  of  the  fourth  century,  as  we  observed,  is  the  very 
first  Chinese  author  to  develop  the  theory  of  the  horn  as  to  its  ability  to  detect  poison, 
and  as  an  efficient  antidote  against  poison.  He  also  reasons  his  theory  out,  and  sup- 
ports it  with  arguments  of  natural  philosophy  breathing  a  decidedly  Taoist  spirit. 
Nothing  appears  in  his  account  that  would  necessitate  a  cogent  conclusion  as  to  his 
dependence  on  Indian  thought.  Indian-Buddhist  influence  on  the  Taoism  of  that 
period  certainly  is  within  the  reach  of  possibility,  but  like  everything  else,  remains 
to  be  proved;  and  for  the  time  being  I  can  only  side  with  PELLIOT  (Journal  asiatique, 
1912,  Juillet-Aout,  p.  149)  when  he  remarks  to  L.  Wieger,  "  Ici  non  plus,  je  ne  nie  pas 
la  possibility  de  semblable  influence,  mais  j'estime  qu'il  faut  etre  tres  prudent."  If  a 
Buddhist  text  translated  from  Sanskrit  into  Chinese  in  or  before  the  age  of  Ko  Hung, 
and  containing  a  distinct  reference  to  this  matter,  can  be  pointed  out,  I  am  willing  to 
concede  that  Ko  Hung  is  indebted  to  an  Indian  source;  if  such  evidence  should  fail  to 
be  forthcoming,  it  will  be  perfectly  sound  to  adhere  to  the  opinion  that  Ko  Hung's 
idea  is  spontaneous,  and  the  expression  of  general  popular  lore  obtaining  at  his  time; 
and  there  is  no  valid  reason  why  it  should  not  be.  No  ancient  Sanskrit  text  containing 
similar  or  any  other  notions  concerning  this  subject  has  as  yet  come  to  the  fore;  and 
the  evidence  in  favor  of  Indian  priority  is  restricted  to  the  slender  thread  of  Ctesias' 
account  (p.  97),  which  is  insufficient  and  inconclusive.  The  light-minded  manner 
with  which  BUSHELL  (Chinese  Art,  Vol.  I,  p.  119)  dealt  in  the  matter  (as  if  the  lore 
of  the  horn  and  the  horn  itself  had  only  been  a  foreign  import  in  China!)  must  be  posi- 
tively rejected.  BRETSCHNEIDER  (above,  p.  75)  no  doubt  was  a  saner  judge.  Neither 
in  ancient  India  nor  in  the  classical  world  do  we  find  any  trace  of  such  beliefs  as  those 
expounded  by.:Ko  Hung  and  his  successors,  nor  a  particle  of  all  that  Chinese  natural 
philosophy  of  the  horn.  AELIAN  merely  reiterates  Ctesias;  JUVENAL  (vn,  130) 
mentions  an  oil-bottle  carved  from  the  horn;  the  Periplus  Marts  Erythraei  (ed.  FABRI- 
cius,  pp.  40,  44,  56)  refers  to  the  export  of  the  horn  from  African  ports  only,  not  from 
India.  The  Cyranides  (F.  DE  MELY,  Les  lapidaires  grecs,  p.  90)  are  ignorant  of  the 
poison-revealing  character  of  the  horn.  But  for  Ctesias,  we  should  be  compelled  to 
admit  that  this  belief  originated  in  China  and  spread  thence  to  India.  At  any  rate, 
the  report  of  Ctesias  stands  isolated  in  the  ancient  world ;  the  untrustworthy  charac- 
ter of  this  author  is  too  well  known  to  be  insisted  upon,  and  it  would  be  preposterous 
to  build  a  far-reaching  conclusion  on  any  of  his  statements  which  cannot  be  checked 
by  other  sources.  His  text  is  handed  down  in  poor  condition,  and  as  late  as  by 
Photius,  patriarch  of  Byzance  (820-891),  so  that  I  am  rather  inclined  to  regard  the 
incriminated  passage  as  an  interpolation  of  uncertain  date.  The  belief  in  rhinoceros- 
horn  being  an  efficient  antidote  against  poison  prevailed  in  Europe  until  recent  times. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  155 

naturally,  as  the  south  bordered  on  Indo-China,  where  the  two-horned 
species  abounded,  and  a  lively  trade  in  its  horn  was  carried  on  at  all 
times.  Hence  in  the  primeval  period  represented  by  the  songs  of  the 
Shi  king  the  rhinoceros  is  styled  se. 

The  philological  students  of  China  will  certainly  feel  somewhat  un- 
easy at  the  thought  that  an  animal  like  the  rhinoceros  should  have  been 
within  the  vision  of  the  early  Chinese.  We  are  all  wont  to  look  at 

It  seems  to  have  received  a  fresh  impetus  from  India  in  the  sixteenth  century.  The 
Portuguese  physician  GARCIA  AB  HORTO  (Aromatum  et  Simplicium  aliquot,  p.  66, 
Antverpiae,  1567;  or  Due  libri  dell"  historia  dei  semplici,  aromati,  et  altre  cose  che 
vengono  portate  dalT  Indie  Orientali  pertinenti  all'  uso  della  medicina,  p.  58,  Venetia, 
1582)  first  reports  from  personal  experience  that  rhinoceros-horn  is  employed  in 
Bengal  as  an  antipoisonous  remedy,  and  goes  on  to  tell  that  this  is  a  fact  established 
by  experiments;  his  story  is  that  of  two  poisoned  dogs — the  one  who  had  swallowed 
double  the  dose  was  cured  after  taking  in  water  a  powder  prepared  from  the  horn, 
while  the  other  dog,  who  had  been  given  but  a  small  quantity  of  poison  and  did  not 
receive  the  remedy  of  the  horn,  was  doomed  to  death.  Doctor  NicoLd  MONARDES, 
physician  in  Sevilla  (Delle  cose  che  vengono  portate  dalT  Indie  occidentali  pertinenti 
all  uso  della  medicina,  p.  72,  Venetia,  1582),  has  the  following  account:  "L"  Unicorno 
vero  &  cosa  di  maggiore  effetto,  che  habbiamo  yeduto,  e  nella  quale  si  trova  maggiore 
esperienza;  del  quale  poco  si  scrive.  Solo  Philostrato  nella  vita  di  Apollonio  dice, 
essere  contra  il  veneno;  il  que  ampliarono  molto  i  Moderni.  Bisogna,  che  sia  del  vero; 
perche  ne  sono  molti  di  falsi,  e  finti.  lo  vidi  in  questa  citta  un  Vinitiano,  che  ne  porto 
un  pezzo  molto  grande,  e  ne  dimandava  cinquecento  scudi ;  delquale  f ece  in  mia  pre- 
senza  la  esperienza.  Prese  un  filo,  e  lo  unse  molto  bene  con  Elleboro,  e  lo  passb  per  le 
creste  di  due  polli;  all"  uno  de'quali  diede  un  poco  di  Unicorno  raso  in  un  poco  di 
acqua  comune;  e  all*  altro  non  diede  cosa  alcuna.  Questo  mori  tra  un  quarto  di  hora; 
I'altro  che  prese  1'Unicorno  durb  due  giorni,  senza  voler  mangiare,  e  alia  fine  di  due 
giorni  mort,  secco  come  un  legno.  Credo  io,  che  se  si  desse  ad  huomo,  che  non  mor- 
rebbe;  perche  tiene  le  vie  piti  aperte  da  potere  scacciare  da  se  il  veneno;  e  gli  si  pu6 
ancho  fare  de  gli  altri  rimedij,  col  mezzo  de'  quali,  e  coll*  Unicorno  potrebbe  liberarsi. 
Di  tutte  queste  Medicine  compongo  io  una  polvere,  che  cosi  per  qualita  manifeste, 
come  per  proprietadi  occulte  ha  gran  virtu,  e  e  di  grande  efficacia  contra  tutti  i  veneni, 
e  contra  le  febbri  Pestilentiali,  6  che  habbiano  mala  qualita;  6  cagione  venenosa." 
Then  he  describes  the  composition  of  this  remedy.  This  European  doctor  was  a 
contemporary  of  Li  Shi-chen.  Who,  after  reading  the  confession  of  his  firm  belief 
in  the  virtues  of  rhinoceros-horn,  will  blame  the  Chinese  physicist?  In  the  court 
ceremonial  of  France  as  late  as  1 789,  instruments  of  unicorn-horn  are  said  to  have 
been  employed  for  testing  the  royal  food  for  poison. —  Chinese  lore  of  the  rhinoceros 
is  based  on  actual  observation  and  speculation  built  thereon.  Not  only,  as  previously 
pointed  out,  are  the  observations  of  the  Chinese  in  this  line  more  complete,  but  even 
more  accurate,  than  those  of  the  classical  peoples.  In  fact,  the  Chinese  adopted  noth- 
ing from  the  latter  as  to  their  notions  of  the  animal.  It  is  of  especial  interest  that  the 
fantastic  belief  of  the  ancients  in  the  mobility  of  the  horn  is  entirely  absent  in  China. 
PLINY  (Nat.  hist.,  vm,  21,  §73;  ed.  MAYHOFF,  Vol.  II,  p.  103)  observes  in  regard  to 
the  animal  eale,  which  has  been  regarded  by  some  authors  as  the  two-horned  rhi- 
noceros, "  It  has  movable  horns  several  cubits  long,  which  it  can  alternately  raise  in  a 
combat  and  turn  straightforward  or  obliquely,  according  to  opportunity"  (maiora 
cubitalibus  cornua  habens  mobilia,  quae  alterna  in  pugna  sistit  variatque  infesta  aut 
obliqua,  utcumque  ratio  monstravit).  The  mobility  of  the  horn  is  insisted  on  by 
COSMAS:  "When  it  is  wandering  about,  the  horns  are  mobile;  but  when  it  sees  any- 
thing which  excites  its  rage,  it  stiffens  them,  and  they  become  so  rigid  that  they  are 
strong  enough  to  tear  up  even  trees  with  the  roots  —  those  especially  which  come 
in  the  way  of  the  front  horn"  (McCRiNDLE,  Ancient  India,  p.  156).  In  a  similar 
manner  al-Berunl  (SACHAU,  Alberuni's  India,  Vol.  I,  p.  204)  says  about  the  African 
rhinoceros  that  its  second  and  longer  horn  becomes  erect  as  soon  as  the  animal  wants 
to  ram  with  it. 


156  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

things  in  the  dim  candle-light  of  school  traditions,  and  to  think  of  the 
rhinoceros  as  an  exclusively  southern,  tropical  animal;  but  the  fact 
remains  that  it  is  not,  any  more  than  the  tiger,  whose  original  home 
doubtless  was  on  the  Amur,  and  who  is  a  comparatively  recent  intruder 
into  Bengal.  Climatic  conditions  and  natural  surroundings  were  dif- 
ferent in  ancient  China  from  what  they  are  at  present ;  and  the  hills  were 
still  crowned  by  dense  forests  which  were  haunted  by  colossal  pachy- 
derms, like  the  elephant,  the  tapir,  and  the  rhinoceros.1 

The  historical  fact  that  the  rhinoceros  was  a  living  contemporary  of 
the  ancient  Chinese  is  fully  confirmed  by  the  investigations  and  results 
of  palaeontology.  As  early  as  1871,  F.  PORTER  SMITH*  stated,  "The 
teeth  of  the  extinct  rhinoceros  of  China,  met  with  in  the  caves  of  Sze- 
ch'uan,  are  sold  as  dragon's  teeth."  Specimens  of  teeth  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  naturalist  D.  Hanbury,  obtained  in  Shen-si  or  Shan-si,  were 
examined  by  Waterhouse  of  the  British  Museum,  and  referred  to 
Rhinoceros  tichorhinus  Cuv.,  Mastodon,  Elephas,  Equus,  and  two  Hip- 
potheria.3 

Armand  David  discovered  at  Suan-hua  fu,  north-west  of  Peking, 
Chili  Province,  bones  from  the  extremities  of  a  mammal  and  a  nasal 
bone  fragment,  which  were  sent  to  Paris  and  determined  by  GAUDRY  4 
as  belonging  to  Rhinoceros  antiquitatis;  and  in  1903  M.  ScHLOSSER5 
was  able  to  show  that  this  species  had  once  been  distributed  as  far  south 
as  the  Yang-tse. 

The  famous  naturalist  A.  R.  WALLACE  6  wrote  in  1 876  that  in  northern 


1  The  alligator  is  now  extinct  in  the  Yang-tse,  but  has  risen  to  life  again  in  the 
ancient  bone  carvings  of  Ho-nan,  and  is  represented  in  several  excellent  specimens 
in  the  Field  Museum  obtained  with  many  others  from  the  late  F.  H.  Chalfant. 

2  Contributions  towards  the  Mat.  Med.  of  China,  p.  185.    Not  all  "  dragon- teeth  " 
(lung  ch'i),  however,  originate  from  the  rhinoceros.    A  number  of  these  gathered  by 
me  in  a  drug-store  of  Hankow  and  now  in  the  American  Museum  of  New  York  (Cat. 
No.  13,847)  were  examined  by  the  palaeontologist  Mr.  B.  Brown,  and  contained  five 
teeth  of  Rhinoceros,  one  tooth  of  Mastodon,  two  teeth  of  Hipparion  (i  m2),  and  one 
tooth  (P3)  of  an  undescribed  Hipparion.     The  palaeontologist  M.  Schlosser  of  Munich 
(see  below)  has  devoted  a  careful  study  to  these  teeth  with  remarkable  results. 
Rhinoceros-teeth  were  employed  for  medicinal  purposes  as  early  as  the  middle  ages. 
In  the  Annals  of  the  Sung  Dynasty  (Sung  shi),  Biography  of  Ts'ien  Shu  (929-988; 
GILES,  Biographical  Dictionary,  p.  144),  there  is  a  record  that  in  the  year  963  this 
prince,  ruler  of  Wu  and  Yue,  sent  as  tribute  ten  thousand  ounces  of  silver,  one 
thousand  single  rhinoceros-teeth  (si  ya),  fifteen  thousand  catties  of  perfume  and  drugs, 
and  a  hundred  wrought  objects  of  gold,  silver,  genuine  pearls,  and  tortoise-shell  (P'ei 
wen  yunfu,  Ch.  21,  p.  114  b).    For  the  year  983,  a  tribute  of  rhinoceros-teeth  is  re- 
corded in  the  same  Annals  as  having  been  sent  from  San-fo-ts'i  (Palembang  on  the 
north-east  coast  of  Sumatra). 

1  China  Review,  Vol.  V,  1876,  p.  69. 

4  Bulletin  de  la  society  geologique  de  France,  Vol.  XXIX,  1871-72,  p.  178. 

6  Die  fossilen  Saugetiere  Chinas  (see  below),  p.  56. 

6  The  Geographical  Distribution  of  Animals,  Vol.  I,  p.  123. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  157 

China  remains  of  Hyaena,  Tapir,  Rhinoceros,  Chalicotherium,  and 
Elephas,  had  recently  been  found,  closely  resembling  those  from  the 
Miocene  or  Pliocene  deposits  of  Europe  and  India,  and  showing  that  the 
Palaearctic  region  had  then  the  same  great  extent  from  west  to  east  that 
it  has  now.  Of  two  species, — complete  carcasses  with  the  skin, — the  two 
horns,  hair,  and  well-preserved  interior  organs,  were  discovered  in  frozen 
soil  between  the  Yenisei  and  Lena  Rivers  in  Siberia.1  They  lived  during 
the  ice  age,  and  were  covered  with  a  coarse  hairy  and  finely  curled  coat, 
the  skin  being  smooth  and  without  the  characteristic  folds  of  the  now 
living  species.  K.  A.  ZrrxEL2  defines  the  zone  of  these  two  species 
(Rhinoceros  mercki  and  antiquitatis}  as  extending  over  the  whole  of 
northern  and  central  Asia,  inclusive  of  China,  and  over  northern  and 
middle  Europe.3  The  best  study  of  this  subject,  thus  far,  has  been 
made  by  M.  SCHLOSSER.*  He  records  a  new  species  from  China  (Rhi- 
noceros habereri) 6  in  two  different  types,  and  two  others  belonging  to  the 
forest  fauna,  one  of  which  is  referred  to  the  two-horned  Sumatran  type, 

1  This  first  find  was  made  in  1771  on  the  bank  of  the  river  Wilui  near  64°  N.  lat. 
It  was  first  described  by  the  prominent  naturalist  P.  S.  PALLAS,  in  his  treatise  De 
reliquiis  animalium  exoticorum  per  Asiam  borealem  repertis  complementum  (in 
Novi  Commentarii  Acad.  Scient.  Petropolitanae,  Vol.  XVII,  1772,  p.  576),  and  in  his 
Reise  durch  verschiedene  Provinzen  des  russischen  Reichs  (Vol.  Ill,  p.  97,  St.  Peters- 
burg, 1 776) .    Head  and  feet  of  this  animal  are  still  preserved  in  St.  Petersburg.    A  fun- 
damental investigation  still  remains  that  of  J.  F.  BRANDT,  De  rhinocerotis  antiquitatis 
seu  tichorhini  seu  pallasii  structura  externa  etc.  (Mtmoires  de  I' A  cad.  de  St.  Peter  s- 
bourg,  series  6,  Vol.  V,  1849,  pp.  161-416).     A  rich  collection  of  rhinoceros-bones 
made  in  the  western  part  of  Transbaikalia  is  in  the  Museum  at  Troitskosavsk  (com- 
pare MOLLESON,  in  Papers  of  the  Troitskosavsk-Kiachta  Section  of  the  Russian  Geogr. 
Soc.,  in  Russian,  Vol.  1, 1898,  p.  71 ;  and  the  detailed  descriptions  of  Mme.  M.  PAVLOV, 
ibid.,  Vol.  XIII,  1910,  pp.  37-44). 

2  Palaeozoologie,  Vol.  IV,  p.  296.     For  a  restoration  of  the  woolly  rhinoceros  found 
in  Siberia  see  N.  N.  HUTCHINSON,  Extinct  Monsters,  Plate  XXI. 

1  We  know  that  fossil  rhinoceros-horn  had  attracted  the  attention  of  Siberian 
natives  long  before  it  came  to  the  notice  of  European  scientists.  It  was  employed 
to  strengthen  their  bows,  and  the  belief  was  entertained  that  it  exerted  a  beneficial 
influence  on  the  arrow  hitting  its  mark.  (Compare  A.  E.  v.  NORDENSKIOLD,  Die 
Umsegelung  Asiens  und  Europas  auf  der  Vega,  Vol.  I,  p.  367,  Leipzig,  1882.)  Now 
we  read  in  the  Annals  of  the  Kin  Dynasty  (Kin  shi,  Ch.  120,  p.  3  a)  that  the  Niuchi, 
a  Tungusic  tribe,  availed  themselves  of  rhinoceros-horn  for  the  same  purpose;  and 
it  may  therefore  be  presumed  that  they  obtained  it  through  the  medium  of  trade 
from  inner  Siberia  (compare  above,  p.  95).  Fossil  rhinoceros-horns  have  also  been 
found  in  the  valley  of  the  Kolyma  River.  K.  v.  DITMAR  (Reisen  und  Aufenthalt  in 
Kamtschatka,  Vol.  I,  p.  37,  St.  Petersburg,  1890)  saw  one  from  that  region  nearly 
three  feet  long,  and  emphasizes  the  co-existence  there  of  numerous  remains  of  rhi- 
noceros, mammoth,  and  narwhal. 

4  Die  fossilen  Saugetiere  Chinas  (Abhandlungen  der  bayer.  Akadcmie,  Cl.  II, 
Vol.  XXII,  1903,  pp.  I -22 1,  14  plates).  This  work  is  conveniently  summed  up  by 
H.  F.  OSBORN  (The  Age  of  Mammals,  pp.  332-335),  where  an  interesting  map 
(p.  505)  is  added,  showing  the  former  and  recent  distribution  of  the  rhinoceros.  The 
material  described  by  Schlosser  is  derived  from  Chinese  drug-stores,  and  was  collected 
by  K.  Haberer.  The  author  gives  also  a  valuable  summary  of  the  localities  in  China 
where  fossil  remains  of  mammals  have  been  found  (pp.  9-19). 

B  L.  c.,  pp.  58-63. 


158  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

and  the  other  (Rhinoceros  brancoi)  possibly  to  the  single-horned  Indian 
species.  This  fact  is  in  striking  agreement  with  the  result  of  our  his- 
torical investigation,  according  to  which  these  two  species  were  known 
to  the  ancient  Chinese  and  distinguished  by  the  two  names  si  and  se. 
In  view  of  the  acquaintance  of  the  Chinese  with  these  two  species,  the 
question  as  to  the  age  of  the  fossil  remains  is,  of  course,  important. 
According  to  the  researches  of  Schlosser,  the  number  of  species  of 
fossil  rhinoceroses  traceable  in  China  amounts  to  at  least  seven,  three 
of  which  originate  from  the  Pleistocene,  four  from  the  Pliocene;  and 
Schlosser  was  able  to  prove  that  Rhinoceros  sinensis  Owen  does  not  rep- 
resent a  species  from  the  Tertiary,  as  presumed  heretofore,  but  should 
be  rather  one  from  the  Pleistocene.1  There  is,  accordingly,  from  a 
geological  viewpoint,  good  reason  to  believe  that  several  species  of 
rhinoceros  could  have  survived  on  Chinese  soil  down  to  the  historic 
period  when  man  made  his  first  appearance  there; 2  and  it  is  in  the  rec- 
ords of  the  Chinese  that  this  fact  has  been  preserved  to  us.  It  even 
seems  to  me  (but  this  is  the  mere  personal  impression  of  a  layman,  which 
may  not  be  acceptable  to  a  specialist  in  this  field)  that  the  Chinese  rec- 
ords, in  a  highly  logical  manner,  fill  a  gap  between  the  palaeontological 
facts  of  Siberia  and  the  present-day  existence  of  the  hairy  two-horned 
rhinoceros  in  south-eastern  Asia.  If  it  is  admissible  to  identify  the 
Siberian  tichorhinus  with  the  latter  species,  or  to  consider  the  former 
as  the  primeval  ancestor  of  the  latter,  it  is  conceivable  that  the  Siberian 
animal,  pressed  by  the  advance  of  the  ice,  started  on  a  migration  south- 
ward, and  first  halted  in  northern  China,  where  it  became  the  5*  of  the 
Chinese,  and  whence  it  finally  proceeded  south-east.  Whatever  this 
fancy  may  be  worth,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  two  points, —  first, 
that  the  ancient  Chinese,  from  the  very  beginning  of  their  history, 
were  acquainted  with  two  species  of  rhinoceros,  the  single-horned  and 
the  two-horned  ones,  distinguished  as  se  and  si;  and,  second,  that  the 


1 L.  c.,  p.  52. 

1  We  owe  to  M.  SCHLOSSER  an  interesting  discovery  in  regard  to  the  age  of  man 
on  Chinese  soil.  He  describes  (pp.  20-21)  and  figures  a  tooth,  a  molar  (mj)  of  the 
left  upper  jaw,  which  originates  either  from  man  or  from  a  new  anthropoid.  This 
tooth  is  perfectly  fossilized,  wholly  untransparent,  and  shows  between  the  roots  a 
reddish  clay,  such  as  is  found  only  in  teeth  really  coming  from  the  Tertiary,  and  not 
from  the  loess;  so  that  the  author  is  inclined  to  ascribe  to  it  a  tertiary  origin,  or  at 
all  events,  a  very  great  age,  going  back  at  least  to  old  Pleistocene.  A  definite  solution 
of  the  problem  cannot  be  reached  at  present.  "The  purpose  of  this  notice  is,"  con- 
cludes SCHLOSSER,  "to  call  the  attention  of  subsequent  investigators,  who  may  have 
an  opportunity  of  undertaking  excavations  in  China,  to  the  possibility  that  either 
a  new  fossil  anthropoid  or  tertiary  man,  or  yet  an  old- Pleistocene  man,  might  be  found. ' ' 
I  agree  with  Schlosser  on  this  point,  and  regard  his  discovery,  which  certainly  so  far 
remains  entirely  hypothetical,  as  highly  suggestive,  and  pointing  in  the  direction  of 
a  future  possibility  of  a  new  Pithecanthropus  being  discovered  in  Chinese  soil. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  159 

former  is  identical  with  the  present  Rhinoceros  indicus  unicornis  (as 
proved  above  all  by  the  linguistic  relationship  of  the  word  se  with 
Tibetan  bse  and  Lepcha  so),  and  the  latter  with  the  present  Rhinoceros 
sumatrensis.1 

We  may  now  attempt  something  like  a  reconstructive  history  of  the 
rhinoceros  in  the  historical  era.  At  the  time  of  the  Shi  king,  the  rhinoce- 
ros was  known  to  the  Chinese  as  a  game-animal.  In  a  song  celebrating 
a  hunting-expedition  by  King  Suan,  it  is  said,  "We  have  bent  our  bows: 
we  have  our  arrows  on  the  string.  Here  is  a  small  boar  transfixed; 
there  is  a  large  rhinoceros  (se)  killed."  2  As  a  metaphor,  the  name  of  the 
animal  is  employed  in  another  song,  in  which  soldiers  constantly  occupied 
on  the  war-path  complain  of  cruel  treatment,  and  say,  "We  are  not 
rhinoceroses,  we  are  not  tigers,  to  be  kept  in  these  desolate  wilds." 
Also  cups  carved  from  rhinoceros-horn  (se  kung) 4  make  their  debut  in 
the  Shi  king;  and  from  the  passages  where  it  is  mentioned,  an  apparent 
symbolism  is  connected  with  it.  In  the  region  of  Pin  it  was  customary 
for  the  people  in  the  tenth  month  to  visit  the  palace  of  their  prince  with 
offerings  of  wine,  and  "to  raise  the  cup  of  rhinoceros-horn  with  wishes 
for  numberless  years  without  end."  5  In  another  song,  a  woman  yearn- 
ing for  her  absent  husband  takes  a  cup  of  wine  poured  out  of  a  rhinoce- 
ros-horn, in  the  hope  that  her  grief  will  not  last  forever. '  The  idea  of 
the  healing  property  of  the  horn  is  possibly  here  involved. 

In  the  Shu  king,  embodying  the  most  ancient  historical  records  of 
the  nation,  the  rhinoceros  is  not  directly  mentioned,  but  one  of  the  two 
principal  products  yielded  by  it  is  alluded  to.  At  least,  this  is  the  opin- 
ion of  the  Chinese  commentators.  In  the  chapter  entitled  Tribute  of 
Yu  (Yu  kung),  "teeth"  and  "hide"  are  stated  to  have  been  the  produce 
of  the  two  provinces  Yang-chou  and  King-chou, — the  former  covering  the 
littoral  territories  south  and  north  of  the  Yang-tse  delta;  the  latter,  the 
present  area  of  Hu-nan  and  Hu-pei.  The  term  "teeth"  is  interpreted 

1  It  would  now  be  appropriate  to  introduce  for  the  two  extinct  Chinese  species 
the  names  Rhinoceros  unicornis  var.  sinensis  (Chinese  se),  and  Rhinoceros  bicornis 
var.  sinensis  (Chinese  si). 

*  Shi  king,  ed.  LEGGE,  p.  292. 
1  Ibid.,  p.  424. 

4  Nos.  6393  and  6398.  The  two  characters  are  read  kung  (according  to  T'ang 
yiin)  and  kuang  (according  to  Shuo  win). 

8  Ibid.,  p.  233.  The  rhinoceros  belongs  to  the  long-lived  animals.  "Individuals 
have  lived  tor  over  twenty  years  in  the  London  Zoological  Gardens,  and  it  is  stated 
that  others  have  been  kept  in  confinement  for  fully  fifty  years.  Consequently  there 
is  no  doubt  that  the  animal  is  long-lived,  and  it  has  been  suggested  that  its  term  of 
life  may  reach  as  much  as  a  century"  (R.  LYDEKKER,  The  Game  Animals  of  India, 
P-  3i). 

•  Ibid.,  p.  9. 


160  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

as  ivory;  the  term  "hide,"  as  rhinoceros-hide.1  This  inference  is  very 
reasonable,  for  the  tributes  or  taxes  of  those  territories  cannot  have  been 
any  ordinary  animal  teeth  or  hides  of  any  kind,  but  they  certainly  were 
those  teeth  and  hides  most  highly  prized  in  the  Chou  period, —  and  these 
were  ivory,  and  rhinoceros-hide  desirable  for  body  armor.2  The  sov- 
ereigns of  the  Chou  dynasty  hunted  the  rhinoceros.  In  B.C.  965,  as 
recorded  in  the  Annals  of  the  Bamboo  Books,  Chao  Wang  invaded  the 
country  of  Ch'u,  and  crossing  the  Han  River,  met  with  a  large  single- 
horned  rhinoceros  (or  rhinoceroses).  Yi  Wang,  in  B.C.  855,  captured, 
when  hunting  in  the  forest  of  She",  a  two-horned  rhinoceros,  and  had  it 
carried  home.3 

The  rhinoceros  was  also  pictured  at  an  early  date.  When  the  em- 
peror mounted  his  chariot,  they  posted  on  both  sides  of  it  the  lords, 
whose  chariots  had  red  wheels,  two  crouching  rhinoceroses  being  repre- 
sented on  each  wheel;  and  they  posted  in  front  the  lords,  whose  chariots 
had  red  wheels  with  a  single  tiger  represented  on  each  wheel.4  This 

1  LEGGE,  Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  in,  115;  COUVREUR,  Chou  King,  pp.  71, 
73  (see  also  HIRTH,  The  Ancient  History  of  China,  p.  121).  LEGGE  remarks,  "This 
view  is  generally  acquiesced  in.  Are  we  to  suppose  then  that  the  rhinoceros  and 
elephant  were  found  in  Yang-chou  in  Yu's  time?  They  may  very  well  have  been  so. 
Hu  Wei  observes  that  from  the  mention  or  supposed  mention  of  these  animals  some 
argue  for  the  extension  of  the  limits  of  the  province  beyond  the  southern  mountain- 
range  to  Kuang-tung,  Kuang-si,  and  Annam,  and  replies  that  the  princes  might  be 
required  to  send  articles  of  value  and  use  purchased  from  their  neighbors,  as  well  as 
what  they  could  procure  in  their  own  territories."  This  conclusion  of  Hu  Wei  is 
quite  unnecessary.  It  is  merely  elicited  by  the  school  opinion  that  the  geographical 
distribution  of  animals  must  have  been  the  same  anciently  as  at  present.  There  can 
certainly  be  no  more  erroneous  view.  Nothing  in  nature  remains  unchangeable.  All 
the  large  mammals  formerly  had  a  far  wider  range,  gradually  narrowed  by  natural 
events  and  human  depredations.  We  are  simply  forced  to  admit  that  the  rhinoceros, 
as  well  as  the  elephant,  existed  in  Yang-chou  and  King-chou  in  the  times  of  antiquity. 
This  logically  results  from  the  Chinese  records,  and  is  a  logical  inference  from  a  zoo- 
geographic  point  of  view.  No  jugglery  or  sophistry,  like  extension  of  geographic 
provinces,  misunderstanding  of  words,  or  introduction  of  bovines,  is  necessary  to 
explain  and  to  understand  a  fact  of  such  simplicity  as  this  one. 

1  The  skin  of  the  rhinoceros  was  utilized  in  the  Chou  period  also  for  the  manu- 
facture of  a  yellow  glue  employed  for  the  purpose  of  combining  the  wooden  and  horn 
parts  of  a  bow  (Chou  li,  XLIV,  BIOT'S  translation,  Vol.  II,  p.  586).  The  commentator 
Wang  Chao-yu  of  the  twelfth  century  justly  adds  that  either  skin  or  horn  can  be  made 
into  glue,  but  that,  as  far  as  the  rhinoceros  is  concerned,  only  the  skin  is  laid  under 
contribution  to  this  end.  Naturally,  since  the  horn  is  too  valuable.  Cheng  K'ang- 
ch'eng  assures  us  that  in  his  time  (second  century  A.D.)  the  stag-glue  was  exclusively 
made  from  the  antlers.  It  is  hardly  conceivable  that  Yang-chou  and  King-chou 
should  have  sent  as  tribute  bovine  hides  which  could  be  obtained  everywhere:  the 
specification  of  these  territories  implies  a  specific  material  peculiar  to  them;  of  wild 
bovines  there,  nothing  is  known. 

1  LEGGE,  Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  Ill,  Prolegomena,  pp.  149,  153;  BIOT'S  translation 
of  Chu  shu  ki  nien,  pp.  41,  46  (Paris,  1842).  Note  that  the  idea  of  the  monoceros 
hiai-chai  originated  in  the  country  of  Ch'u  (above,  p.  115,  note  2).  In  the  Ch'un- 
ts'iu  period,  as  it  appears  from  a  passage  of  Tso  chuan  (LEGGE,  Chinese  Classics, 
Vol.  V,  p.  289),  both  se  and  si  were  still  plenty. 

4  CHAVANNES,  Les  Me'moires  historiques  de  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  214. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  161 

juxtaposition  of  rhinoceros  and  tiger  is  noteworthy,  for  it  turns  up 
again  in  Chuang-tse:  "To  travel  by  water  and  not  avoid  sea-serpents 
and  dragons,  —  this  is  the  courage  of  a  fisherman.  To  travel  by  land 
and  not  avoid  the  rhinoceros  and  the  tiger, — this  is  the  courage  of 
hunters."  l  And  in  Lao-tse's  Too  te  king  (Ch.  50) :  "  He  who  knows  how 
to  take  care  of  his  life,  when  travelling  by  road,  never  meets  rhinoceros 
or  tiger;  when  entering  the  army,  he  does  not  require  defensive  or 
offensive  armor.  The  rhinoceros,  therefore,  finds  no  place  where  to 
insert  its  horn,  the  tiger  where  to  lay  its  claws,  the  soldier  where  to 
pierce  him  with  his  sword."  2  Finally  in  the  passage  of  Lun  yii 3  already 
referred  to. 

The  extermination  of  wild  animals  made  rapid  progress;  the  grad- 
ually advancing  Chinese  agriculturist  cleared  the  hills  and  deforested 
the  plains  in  order  to  till  the  ground  and  to  yield  the  means  of  subsist- 
ence for  the  steadily  increasing  populace.  The  famous  passage  in 
M&ng-tse*  is  of  primary  importance:  Chou-kung,  the  organizer  of  the 
government  of  the  Chou  dynasty,  broke  the  rebellions  and  established 
peace  throughout  the  empire;  "he  drove  far  away  also  the  tigers,  leop- 
ards, rhinoceroses,  and  elephants,  —  and  all  the  people  was  greatly 
delighted."  Toward  the  end  of  the  Chou  period  (middle  of  the  third 
century  B.C.)  the  one-horned  rhinoceros  was,  in  all  likelihood,  extinct 
in  northern  China;  and  the  two-horned  species  had  gradually  withdrawn, 
and  taken  refuge  in  the  high  mountain-fastnesses  of  the  south-west. 
The  strong  desire  prevailing  in  the  epoch  of  the  Chou  for  the  horn  of  the 
animal,  which  was  carved  into  ornamental  cups,  and  for  its  valuable 
skin,  which  was  worked  up  into  armor,  had  no  doubt  contributed  to  its 
final  destruction  in  the  north.  So  there  is  no  reason  to  wonder  that 
to  the  later  authors  the  extinct  animal  se  was  a  blank,  and  offered  a 
convenient  field  for  fanciful  speculations.  * 

1  GILES,  Chuang  Tzu,  p.  214. 

1  Compare  S.  JULIEN,  Le  livre  de  la  voie  et  de  la  vertu,  p.  183.  It  is  noticeable 
that  the  word  kia,  which  in  Lao-tse's  time  designated  a  cuirass  of  rhinoceros-hide, 
appears  here  in  close  connection  with  the  rhinoceros. 

1  LEGGE,  Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  I,  p.  307. 

4  LEGGE,  The  Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  II,  p.  281. 

*  It  is  a  well-known  phenomenon  in  all  languages  that  newly-discovered  animals 
are  named  for  those  already  known,  for  example,  that  sea-mammals  are  named  for 
land-mammals  to  which  they  bear  some  outward  resemblance,  or  insects  for  larger 
animals.  Thus  we  know  a  rhinoceros-beetle  (Oryctes  rhinoceros)  with  horns  or  pro- 
cesses on  its  head  (see  Science,  1913,  p.  883),  and  a  rhinoceros-bird  or  hornbill  (Buceros 
rhinoceros)  noted  for  the  extraordinary  horny  protuberance  on  the  crest  of  its  bill. 
These  examples  certainly  do  not  mean  that  our  word  "rhinoceros"  originally  referred  to 
an  insect  or  a  bird ;  but  in  our  effort  to  coin  a  name  for  this  beetle  and  bird,  we  happened 
to  hit  upon  the  rhinoceros,  because  certain  characteristics  of  it  were,  by  way  of 
comparison,  seen  in  the  former.  It  is  exactly  the  same  when  the  Chinese,  in  literary 


1 62  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

Se-ma  Ts'ien,  the  father  of  Chinese  history,  who  was  born  in  B.C. 
145,  and  died  between  B.C.  86  and  74,  and  who  in  his  Historical  Memoirs 
repeatedly  mentions  the  two  species,  doubtless  was  personally  familiar 
with  them;  for  he  locates  them  in  Sze-ch'uan,1  and  we  know  that  he,  a 
great  traveller  and  observer,  accompanied  the  military  expedition  of  the 
Emperor  Wu  sent  in  B.C.  in  into  Sze-ch'uan  and  Yiin-nan. 2  Again 
and  again,  Chinese  authors  in  the  beginning  of  our  era  point  to  that  ter- 
ritory as  the  stronghold  of  the  rhinoceros.  We  noticed  that  Kuo  P'o 
of  the  third  century  alludes  to  Mount  Liang  in  Sze-ch'uan  as  its  habitat 
(p.  94) ;  and  we  may  add  to  this  the  weighty  testimony  of  Ch'ang  K'ti 

style,  sometimes  designate  the  buffalo  "the  water- rhinoceros"  (shui  se).  In  the  pre- 
Christian  era  the  word  se  invariably  applied  to  the  single-horned  rhinoceros,  —  a  fact 
confirmed  by  the  concordance  of  the  word  with  Tibetan  (b)se  (p.  116).  In  times 
following  the  ultimate  extermination  of  this  species  on  Chinese  soil,  this  word  natu- 
rally fell  into  disuse  and  became  open  to  other  functions;  while  si  is  still  retained  as 
the  general  word  for  rhinoceros,  whether  single  or  two  horned.  The  word  se  was 
transferred  to  the  buffalo,  because  to  a  naive  and  primitive  mind  the  two  animals, 
as  has  been  demonstrated  by  the  world- wide  propagation  of  this  notion,  bear  a 
striking  similarity  to  each  other.  The  attribute  "water"  fits  both  with  their  fond- 
ness for  lying  embedded  for  hours  in  mud  and  water.  A  sequel  of  this  transfer  in 
meaning,  then,  was  the  impression  of  recent  Chinese  authors  that  the  word  se  had 
denoted  also  the  wild  buffalo  or  ox  in  the  times  of  antiquity.  This,  of  course,  is  a 
phantom.  The  most  instructive  passage  where  the  words  si  and  shui  se  are  used  to- 
gether in  close  succession  occurs  in  Sung  shi  (Ch.  489,  p.  i),  where  it  is  said,  in  the 
chapter  on  Champa  (Chan-ch'6ng),  that  "the  country  abounds  in  peacocks  and  rhi- 
noceros (si  niu),  that  the  people  keep  yellow  oxen  and  buffalo  (shui  niu),  and  that 
those  engaged  in  the  capture  of  rhinoceros  and  elephant  (si  siang)  pay  a  tax  on  them 
to  the  king;  they  eat  the  flesh  of  wild  goats  and  buffalo  (shui  se)."  In  Siam,  permis- 
sion to  capture  wild  elephants  must  still  be  obtained  from  the  Government,  and  for 
each  animal  caught  a  royalty  of  $150  is  paid  (C.  C.  HANSEN,  Daily  Consular  and 
Trade  Reports,  191 1,  p.  751).  In  mediaeval  times  when  the  rhinoceros  became  grad- 
ually scarcer  on  Chinese  soil,  and  the  supply  of  its  skin  no  longer  satisfied  the  de- 
mand for  it,  buffalo-hide  was  substituted  for  it.  Chinese  authors,  with  fair  accuracy, 
indicate  the  time  when  this  change  went  into  effect.  A  book  Ts'e  lin  hai  ts'o,  quoted 
in  the  cyclopaedia  Yen  kien  lei  han  (Ch.  228,  p.  4),  states  in  substance  that  what  is 
designated  rhinoceros-hide  armor  in  the  T'ang  History  is  at  present  made  from  buffalo 
hide,  but  continues  under  the  general  name  "  rhinoceros  "  (si).  The  Chinese,  accord- 
ingly, were  perfectly  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  ancient  cuirasses  were  wrought  from 
rhinoceros-hide,  and  that  buffalo-hide  was  a  later  substitute.  Ch'&ng  Ta-ch'ang,  who 
wrote  in  the  latter  part  of  the  twelfth  century,  says  in  a  discourse  on  defensive  armor 
(inserted  in  Wu  pei  chi,  published  in  1621  by  Mao  Yuan-i,  Ch.  105,  p.  4)  that  the 
skin  of  a  domesticated  animal  like  the  ox  is  always  handy,  while  the  two  rhinoceroses 
si  and  se  cannot  be  reared,  and  their  skins  are  not  always  obtainable;  and  that  in  his 
time  armor  was  produced  from  buffalo-hide.  In  T'ang  shu  (Ch.  41,  p.  i)  the  tribute 
sent  by  the  district  of  Kuang-ling  in  Yang-chou  (circuit  of  Huai-nan)  is  stated  to 
have  consisted  of  armor  made  from  buffalo-hide  (shui  se  kia).  The  rhinoceros  is 
here  out  of  the  question,  as  it  did  not  occur  in  that  region;  and  the  geographical 
chapters  of  the  T'ang  Annals  give  us  the  best  clew  to  the  tracing  of  the  geographical 
distribution  of  the  rhinoceros  in  the  China  of  that  period.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that 
the  term  shui  si  ("water  rhinoceros  ")  is  still  employed  with  reference  to  the  rhinoceros 
only,  not  the  buffalo.  Chung  Kia-fu  writing  in  1845  (Ch'un  ts'ao  fang  chi,  Ch.  30, 
p.  13)  makes  the  remark  that  "the  cups  and  dishes  carved  from  rhinoceros-horn 
(si  kid)  in  his  time  are  not  from  the  genuine  rhinoceros  (shui  si),  but  from  the  horn 
of  a  wild  ox  (ye  niu)  in  the  countries  of  the  foreign  barbarians." 

1  Shi  ki,  Ch.  117,  p.  3  b. 

1  CHAVANNES,  Les  Mgrnoires  historiques  de  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  Vol.  I,  p.  xxxi. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  163 

of  the  period  of  the  Tsin  dynasty  (2 65-4 19),  who  in  his  interesting  work 
Hua  yang  kuo  chi  ascribes  colossal  rhinoceroses  to  the  country  of  Pa, 
the  ancient  designation  for  the  eastern  part  of  Sze-ch'uan,  and  further 
places  the  animal  in  the  district  of  Hui-wu,  the  present  Hui-li  in  the 
prefecture  of  King-yuan,  province  of  Sze-ch'uan. 1  However  doubtful 
the  exact  date  of  the  work  Pie  lu  may  be,  the  fact  remains  that  it  plainly 
indicates  south-western  China  in  its  whole  range  as  the  geographical 
area  of  the  rhinoceros  (p.  135). 

With  their  victorious  advance  toward  the  south-east  in  the  third  and 
second  centuries  B.C.,  the  horizon  of  the  Chinese  people  widened;  and 
they  encountered  the  two-horned  rhinoceros  also  in  Tonking.2  The 
tributes  of  live  rhinoceroses  sent  to  the  Chinese  Court  from  that  region 
have  been  mentioned  (p.  80).  Liu  Hin-k'i,  author  of  the  Records  of 
Kiao-chou,  of  the  fourth  or  fifth  century,  gives  a  perfectly  correct 
description  of  the  two-horned  Annamese  rhinoceros  (p.  93).  T'ao 
Hung-king,  the  universal  genius  of  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries,  logically 
combines  the  ancient  information  relative  to  the  south-west  with  the 
additional  experience  coming  from  the  conquered  south-east:  Hu-nan, 
Yun-nan,  and  Kiao-chou  in  Tonking,  according  to  him,  represent  the 
home  of  the  rhinoceros  (p.  136).  This  alliance  of  the  two  geographical 
zones  is  a  fact  of  the  greatest  interest,  for  this  observation  of  T'ao  Hung- 
king  incontrovertibly  proves  that  the  word  si  can  but  signify  the 
rhinoceros,  and  particularly  the  two-horned  species.  When  the  Chinese 
first  struck  the  rhinoceros  of  Annam,  the  matter  is  not  reported  as  a 
novel  experience;  but  they  merely  renewed  an  old  experience  which  they 
had  long  before  made  in  their  own  country,  and  applied  the  same  familiar 
word  to  it.  If  the  si  of  Tonking  is  the  rhinoceros  (and  there  is  not  an 
atom  of  doubt  about  it)  ,3  the  si  formerly  recorded  in  Sze-ch'uan,  Yun-nan, 


1  PLAYFAIR,  No.  2480  (ad  ed.,  No.  2341).    The  passages  referred  to  are  in  Hua 
yang  kuo  chi,  Ch.  i,  p.  2  b;  Ch.  3,  p.  23  (ed.  of  Han  Wei  ts'ung  shu). 

*  Ts'ien  Han  shu,  Ch.  28  B,  p.  17.    Thus  the  pseudo-embassy  of  the  Emperor 
Marc  Aurel,  presenting  in  166  A.D.  the  Annamese  products  ivory,  rhinoceros-horn 
and  tortoise-shell,  and  mentioned  in  the  Annals  of  the  Later  Han  Dynasty  (HiRTH, 
China  and  the  Roman  Orient,  pp.  42,  176),  was  not  the  first  to  make  the  rhinoceros- 
horn  of  Annam  known  to  the  Chinese,  who  were  acquainted  with  it  at  least  two  cen- 
turies earlier. 

*  The  fact  is  still  evidenced  by  present-day  conditions  and  the  continuous  trade 
carried  on  at  all  times  in  rhinoceros-horn  from  Annam  to  China.     Compare  G. 
DEV&RIA,  Histoire  des  relations  de  la  Chine  avec  1'Annam,  pp.  41,  88  (Paris,  1880); 
S.  W.  WILLIAMS  (The  Chinese  Commercial  Guide,  p.  94)  states  that  the  best  sort  of 
rhinoceros-horn  comes  from  Siam  and  Cochinchina,  selling  at  times  for  $300  apiece, 
while  that  from  India,  Sumatra,  and  southern  Africa,  represents  an  inferior  sort,  and 
sells  for  $30  and  upwards  apiece.    For  the  middle  ages  we  have  the  testimony  of 
Chao  Ju-kua  (HIRTH'S  and  ROCKHILL'S  translation,  p.  46).    As  has  been  pointed 
out,  the  word  se  gradually  sank  into  oblivion  in  the  post-Christian  era,  and  was 
superseded  by  the  exclusive  use  of  the  word  si,  which  was  then  applied  also  to  the 


164  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

etc.,  must  likewise  be  the  rhinoceros;  andT'ao  Hung-king  is  our  witness 
in  establishing  the  identity  of  the  animal  as  occurring  in  the  Chinese 
and  Indo-Chinese  zones.  This  fact  is  borne  out  also  by  the  coincidence 
of  the  definitions  contributed  by  Kuo  P'o  and  Liu  Hin-k'i. 

In  the  T'ang  period  (618-906)  the  animal  must  have  been  plentiful 
in  many  parts  of  China.  The  geographical  section  in  the  Annals  of 
that  dynasty  carefully  enumerates  the  various  articles  sent  up  to  the 
capital  as  taxes  from  every  district;  and  it  is  the  local  products  which 
come  into  question.  Besides,  rhinoceros-horn,  as  far  as  I  know,  was 
not  imported  at  that  time  from  beyond  the  sea.  The  present  terri- 
tory of  the  province  of  Hu-nan  in  central  China  seems  to  have  then 
abounded  in  the  animal,1  for  no  less  than  eight  localities  within  its 
boundaries  are  on  record  which  furnished  rhinoceros-horn  to  the  Court: 
viz.,  Li-yang  in  Li  chou,  circuit  of  Shan-nan;  Wu-ling  in  Lang-chou; 
K'ien-chung  in  K'ien-chou;  Lu-k'i  in  Ch'£n-chou;  Lu-yang  in  Kin- 
chou;  Ling-k'i  in  K'i  chou  (modern  Yung-shun  fu);  Kiang-hua  in  Tao- 
chou,  circuit  of  Kiang-nan;  and  Shao-yang  in  Shao-chou.  Rhinoceros- 
horn  was  further  supplied  from  Lung-k'i  in  Tsiang-chou,  from  T'an- 
yang  in  Su-chou,  Sze-ch'uan;  from  Ts'ing-hua  in  Shi-chou  (now  Shi- 
nan  fu)  in  Hu-pei  Province;  from  Yi-ts'iian2  in  Yi-chou,  province  of 
Kuei-chou;  from  Annam;  and  elephants  and  rhinoceroses  were  sent 
from  Ling-nan  (Kuang-tung),  forming  the  southern  part  of  Yang-chou.3 
Is  it  conceivable  that  the  tribute  of  those  regions  should  have  con- 
sisted of  bovine  horns  which  have  hardly  any  commercial  value? 
From  mediaeval  times  onward,  as  the  geographical  knowledge  of  the 
Chinese  more  and  more  advanced,  and  their  intercourse  and  trade  with 
the  nations  of  the  southern  ocean  increased,  they  became  cognizant  of 
the  existence  of  the  rhinoceros  in  India, 4  Java, 5  and  Sumatra,  and  even 

single-horned  rhinoceros.  The  rhinoceros  of  India  is  indeed  designated  si  (Hou  Han 
shu,  Ch.  1 18,  p.  5  b;  Nan  shi,  Ch.  78,  p.  7;  T'ang  shu,  Ch.  221  A,  p.  10  b).  This  proves 
again  that  the  word  si  refers  to  the  rhinoceros,  and  to  this  animal  only. 

1  Hu-nan,  as  said  before,  is  mentioned  also  by  T'ao  Hung-king.  In  this  province 
formerly  occurred  both  the  rhinoceros  and  the  elephant,  furnishing  hide  and  ivory, 
respectively,  at  the  time  of  the  Chou  dynasty  (HiRTH,  The  Ancient  History  of 
China,  p.  121,  and  above,  p.  159).  In  Hu-nan  fang  wu  chi,  "Records  of  the  Local 
Products  of  Hu-nan"  (Ch.  3,  p.  14;  edition  of  1846),  it  is  stated  that  there  was  rhi- 
noceros-horn among  the  local  products  sent  as  tribute  from  Heng-chou;  the  text  is 
quoted  from  Kiu  yu  chi,  a  geographical  description  of  China,  which,  according  to 
BRETSCHNEIDER  (Bot.  Sin.,  pt.  I,  p.  162),  was  published  in  1080  A.D. 

1  PLAYFAIR,  Nos.  6381,  6713  (zd  ed.,  No.  5701). 

1  PLAYFAIR,  No.  8350  (2d  ed.  No.  3939).  Compare  Tang  shu,  Chs.  40,  pp.  i  b,  6b; 
41,  pp.  9  a,  9  b,  10  a;  43,  p.  I  a. 

4  See  note  3  on  p.  163. 

6  As  regards  Java,  rhinoceros-horn  is  listed  among  its  products  in  T'ang  shu 
(Ch.  222  c,  p.  3;  and  GROENEVELDT,  Miscell.  Papers  relating  to  Indo-China,  Vol.  I, 
p.  139).  The  Sung  shi  (Ch.  489;  GROENEVELDT,  ibid.,  p.  144)  reports  a  tribute  from  Java 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  165 

Africa.  The  interesting  notes  of  Chao  Ju-kua  written  in  1225,*  em- 
inently translated  and  interpreted  by  HIRTH  and  ROCKHILL,  afford  an 
excellent  view  of  all  the  localities  from  which  rhinoceros-horn  was 
traded  to  China,  during  the  middle  ages; 2  he  refers  to  the  Berbera  coast 
as  producing  big  horns  (p.  128),  and  records  them  also  for  the  island  of 
Pemba  (p.  i49).3 

Returning  to  China,  we  find  trustworthy  accounts,  according  to 
which  the  rhinoceros  has  persisted  there  in  some  localities  at  least 
down  to  the  thirteenth  century.  Kuo  Yun-tao,  who  composed  an  elabo- 
rate history  of  Sze-ch'uan  in  the  thirteenth  century,4  states  that  the 
region  of  the  aboriginal  tribes  of  the  south-west  (Si-nan  /)  harbors  a 
great  number  of  rhinoceroses  and  elephants;  and  this  agrees  with  the 
above  statement  of  Su  Sung  (p.  140)  that  rhinoceros-horns  came  from 
Sze-ch'uan  at  the  same  period.  As  the  author  includes  also  the  prov- 
ince of  Kuei-chou,  we  are  allowed  to  presume  that  the  two-horned 
rhinoceros  still  inhabited  the  forests  of  Sze-ch'uan  and  Kuei-chou  during 
the  age  of  the  Sung  dynasty  (g6o-i278).B  In  the  year  987,  as  narrated 
in  the  Annals  of  the  Sung  Dynasty, 6  a  rhinoceros  penetrated  from  the 
southern  part  of  K'ien  into  Wan-chou7  where  people  seized  and  slew  it, 


of  short  swords  with  hilts  of  rhinoceros-horn  or  gold,  and  records  the  word  ti-mi  as 
the  native  name  of  the  rhinoceros.  This  word  is  not  Javanese,  in  which  the  animal 
is  called  warak,  but  is  presumably  traceable  to  the  Kawi  language  (compare  the 
discussions  of  this  word  by  G.  SCHLEGEL,  Toung  Pao,  Vol.  X,  1899,  p.  272;  and  P. 
PELLIOT,  Bull,  de  I'Ecolefrangaise,  Vol.  IV,  1904,  p.  310). 

1  PELLIOT,  T'oung  Pao,  1912,  p.  449. 

1  At  least  as  early  as  the  fifth  century,  carved  objects  of  rhinoceros-horn  were 
traded  to  China  from  the  Roman  Orient  and  India  (HiRTH,  China  and  the  Roman 
Orient,  p.  46).  In  the  year  730  a  tribute  of  rhinoceros- horn  from  Persia  is  mentioned 
(CHAVANNES,  T'oung  Pao,  1904,  p.  51). 

1  The  Geography  of  the  Ming  Dynasty  (Ta  Ming  i  t'ung  chi,  ed.  of  1461,  Ch.  91, 
fol.  20)  lists  rhinoceros-horn  also  among  the  products  of  Arabia  (Tien-fang).  Un- 
der the  Ming,  rhinoceros-horn  was  imported  to  China  from  Champa,  Cambodja, 
Malacca,  Borneo,  Siam,  Bengal,  and  rhinoceros-flesh  from  Java.  These  data  are 
derived  from  the  5t  yang  ch'ao  kung  tien  lu  by  Huang  Sh&ng-tseng,  published  in  1520 
(reprinted  in  Pie  hia  chai  ts'ung  shu)-,  this  is  the  most  convenient  work  on  the  coun- 
tries of  the  Indian  Ocean  and  on  Chinese  knowledge  of  them  during  the  Ming,  and 
gives  more  information  than  the  Ming  Annals. 

*  Shu  kien  (Ch.  10,  p.  i),  reprinted  in  Shou  shan  ko  ts'ung  shu,  Vol.  23.  The  pref- 
ace of  Li  W&n-tse  is  dated  1236. 

'  It  might  seem  that  the  rhinoceros  was  extinct  in  China  proper  at  the  time  of 
the  Yuan  period  (1271-1367),  judging  from  a  remark  made  by  Chou  Ta-kuan,  in 
his  Memoirs  on  the  Customs  of  Cambodja,  to  the  effect  that  the  latter  country  har- 
bors the  rhinoceros,  elephant,  the  wild  buffalo,  and  the  mountain-horse,  which  do  not 
occur  in  China  (PELLIOT,  Bulletin  de  I'Ecolefranfaise,  Vol.  II,  1902,  p.  169);  but  the 
passage  is  by  no  means  conclusive,  and  may  simply  be  interpreted  in  the  sense  that 
the  author  had  never  seen  or  heard  of  a  rhinoceros  in  China. 

6  Sung  shi,  Chapter  Wu  king  chi,  quoted  in  T*u  shu  tsi  ch'eng  (Chapter  on  Rhi- 
noceros). 

1  Now  the  district  of  Wan  in  K'uei-chou  fu,  Sze-ch'uan  Province. 


i66  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

keeping  its  skin  and  horn.  It  should  be  remembered  that  Li  Shi-ch£n, 
who  lived  in  the  sixteenth  century,  still  assigned  to  the  rhinoceros  the 
southern  portion  of  Yun-nan  and  the  adjoining  Tibetan  regions.  Even 
at  the  present  time  the  rhinoceros  may  still  exist  in  isolated  spots  on 
Chinese  territory. 

JOHAN  NEUHOF  *  locates  it  in  the  province  of  Sze-ch'uan,  particularly 
near  the  small  town  of  Po  (P'a  is  presumably  meant). 

O.  DAPPER  2  appropriates  to  the  rhinoceros  Sze-ch'uan  and  Chucheu- 
fu  (?)  in  Kuang-si.  Du  HALDE  3  ascribes  the  rhinoceros  to  the  prefecture 
of  Wu-chou  in  Kuang-si.  L.  RICHARD*  states,  "On  account  of  the 
devastation  prevailing  in  Kuang-si,  a  great  number  of  wild  animals  are 
found  there:  the  tiger,  rhinoceros,  panther,  tapir,  wolf,  bear,  and  fox." 
The  zoologist  W.  MARSHALL,6  in  a  general  summary  of  the  Chinese 
fauna,  observes  that  the  south,  and  particularly  the  south-west,  of  China, 
harbor  decidedly  Indian  types  of  mammals,  among  these  the  Indian 
tapir  and  the  single-horned  rhinoceros. 

The  products  yielded  by  an  animal,  and  the  manner  of  their  utiliza- 
tion, allow  also  conclusive  evidence  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  animal 
itself.  That  rhinoceros-horn  was  worked  in  ancient  times  and  well 
differentiated  from  other  ordinary  horn,  is  evidenced  by  the  curious 
fact  that  three  distinct  verbs  pertaining  to  the  treatment  of  ivory, 
ordinary  horn,  and  rhinoceros-horn,  are  listed  in  the  dictionary  Erh  ya. 
The  carving  of  ivory  is  designated  by  the  word  ku  (No.  6248) ;  the  treat- 
ing of  ordinary  horn  (kio),  by  the  word  hio; 6  the  carving  of  rhinoceros- 
horn  (si),  by  the  word  ts'o  or  ts'uo  (No.  11,766).  In  the  latter  case 
Mr.  GILES,  in  the  second  edition  of  his  Dictionary,  has  justly  retained 
the  meaning  "to  make  rhinoceros-horn  into  cups;  to  carve."  The 
word  is  apparently  identical  with  ts'o  (No.  11,778),  meaning  "to  file, 
trim,  cut,  plane,  polish,"  etc.,  including  all  the  various  manipulations  of 
the  carver. 

At  this  point  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  call  to  mind  the  fact  that  a 

1  Die  Gesantschaft  der  ostindischen  Geselschaft,  p.  348  (Amsterdam,  1669). 

2  Beschryving  des  Keizerryks  van  Taising  of  Sina,  p.  230  (Amsterdam,  1670). 
*  A  Description  of  the  Empire  of  China,  Vol.  I,  p.  121  (London,  1738). 

4  Comprehensive  Geography  of  the  Chinese  Empire,  p.  198  (Shanghai,  1908). 

8  Die  Tierwelt  Chinas  (Zeitschrift  fur  Naturwissenschaften,  Vol.  73,  1900,  p.  73). 

'Composed  of  the  classifier  kio  ('horn')  at  the  foot,  and  the  phonetic  comple- 
ment hio  ('to  learn').  The  character  is  not  contained  in  our  current  Chinese  dic- 
tionaries (not  even  in  PALLADIUS)  ;  students  of  Chinese  will  easily  find  it  in  K'ang-hi's 
Dictionary  under  classifier  148  (13  strokes,  first  character).  The  definition  of  the 
word  hio  given  by  the  Shuo  win  —  chi  kio  ("to  treat  horn")  —  calls  for  attention, 
any  word  like  cutting  or  carving  being  avoided.  The  ancient  Chinese  were  familiar 
with  all  processes  of  horn-work  (soaking,  slicing,  welding,  etc.),  which  are  described 
in  the  Chou  li. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  167 

rhinoceros-horn  is  capable  of  being  carved,  but  that  the  horn  of  a  bovine 
animal  cannot  be  carved.  These  horns,  biologically,  are  entirely  dif- 
ferent in  origin  and  structure.  The  Chinese  were  quite  right  in  re- 
garding the  rhinoceros-horn  as  a  marvel  of  nature,  for  it  is  a  unique 
phenomenon  of  creation.  It  is  composed  of  a  solid  mass  of  agglutinated 
hairs  or  bristles,  and  has  no  firm  attachment  to  the  bones  of  the  skull, 
which  are  merely  roughened  and  somewhat  elevated  so  as  to  fit  into  the 
concave  base  of  the  solid  horn.  Ox,  sheep,  or  antelope,  however,  have 
hollow  horns;  deer  and  giraffe,  bony  antlers.  None  of  these  is  fit  to  be 
worked  into  a  cup;  and  a  cup  carved  from  a  horn  can  mean  nothing  but 
one  carved  from  rhinoceros-horn.  Horns  of  bovine  animals,  as  we  all 
know,  may  be  utilized  as  drinking-vessels,  or,  as  among  primitive  tribes, 
as  powder-flasks,  or,  as  among  the  Tibetans,  even  as  snuff-bottles,  or,  as 
in  India,  to  pour  out  holy  water;  but  they  are  by  nature  made  ready  for 
use,  and  do  not  require  any  carving.  The  se  kung  of  antiquity  are 
certainly  cups  carved  from  rhinoceros-horn,1  not  cups  of  buffalo- 
horn,  as  Mr.  GILES  (No.  10,298)  has  it  in  the  second  edition  of  his 
Dictionary. 

Naturally,  none  of  those  ancient  drinking-horns  has  survived,  but  at 
a  later  time  they  were  imitated  in  bronze.  There  are,  at  least,  some 
bronze  drinking-cups  preserved,  which  are  connected  by  Chinese 
archaeologists  with  the  drinking-horns  of  antiquity.  In  the  Po  ku  t'u 
lu  (Ch.  16,  p.  16)  an  illustration  (Fig.  23)  is  given  under  the  title  Han 
hi  shou  pei  (" cup  with  the  head  of  a  sacrificial  bull,  of  the  Han  period"). 
A  similar  bronze  (Fig.  24)  is  figured  in  the  Kin  shi  so,  with  the  legend 
Chou  se  kung  ("rhinoceros-horn  cup  of  the  Chou  period").2  The  text 
of  the  Po  ku  t'u  lu  quotes  the  passage  of  the  Shi  king  in  which  the  se 
kung  are  spoken  of  (above,  p.  159),  and  says  that  this  bronze  cup  comes 
very  near  to  them.  The  bull-head  is  certainly  a  feature  which  originated 
only  subsequently  in  bronze-casting,  when  the  accepted  forms  of  the 
horn  cups  were  imitated  in  bronze.  It  is  noticeable  that  the  cup,  as 
figured  in  the  Sung  Catalogue  of  Bronzes,  corresponds  in  a  measure  to 
the  form  of  a  rhinoceros-horn  inverted  and  hollowed  out  from  the  base. 

1  Likewise  PALLADIUS  (Vol.  I,  p.  136)  and  COUVREUR  (p.  451). 

1  The  authenticity  of  the  specimen  of  the  Kin  shi  so  seems  somewhat  contestable. 
The  head  is  that  of  a  stag,  but  is  equipped  with  ox-horns.  The  dating  in  the  Chou 
period  is  arbitrary  and  unsupported  by  evidence.  It  is  remarked  in  the  explanatory 
text  that  it  is  not  known  whether  the  piece  is  a  rhinoceros-horn  cup  (se  kung).  The 
similarity  of  the  two  specimens  (Figs.  23,  24)  with  the  rhyton  of  the  Greeks  is  appar- 
ent, but  there  is  no  necessity  of  assuming  an  historical  interrelation  of  the  two  types. 
Both  were  independently  developed  from  natural  horns  used  as  drinking-cups, 
which  were  subsequently  imitated  in  more  durable  materials,  like  clay  and  metal. 
Moreover,  the  Greek  rhyton  has  a  feature  lacking  in  the  Chinese  specimens, —  a 
single  oblong  loop-handle. 


i68 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


As  stated  by  a  great  number  of  commentaries,1  the  se  kung  were  carved 
from  wood  if  rhinoceros-horn  were  lacking.  Certainly,  there  could  have 
never  been  any  want  of  bovine  horns;  and  it  is  inconceivable  that  an 
ox-horn  should  have  been  ever  reproduced  in  wood.  Fan  Ch'e~ng-ta, 
in  his  Km  hai  yii  h8ng  chi,*  has  a  note  to  the  effect  that  "the  people  on 
the  seacoast  make  cups  from  ox-horn  (niu  kio  pei)  by  splitting  the  horn 


FIG.  23. 
Bronze  Rhyton  attributed  to  Han  Period  (from  Po  ku  t'u  lu). 

in  two  and  smoothing  the  edges  to  enable  them  to  drink  wine  from  them, 
which  appears  as  a  survival  of  the  ancient  rhinoceros-horn  goblets." 
They  did  not  carve  their  cups  from  ox-horn,  however:  they  merely 
split  the  latter,  as  the  author  advisedly  says.  * 


1  See  T*u  shu  tsi  ch'dng,  K'ao  kung  tien,  sect.  197,  kung  pu. 

1  Edition  of  Chi  pu  tsu  chai  ts'ung  shu,  p.  14  b. 

3  It  may  be  stated  positively  that  a  confusion  of  rhinoceros  and  ox  horns  (or 
any  other  horns)  is  absolutely  impossible,  the  two  being  entirely  distinct  organic 
substances  of  different  origin  and  structure;  and  we  are  quite  willing  to  believe  Chang 
Shi-nan,  the  author  of  Yu  huan  ki  wdn  early  in  the  thirteenth  century,  that  an  artisan 
of  Shuang-liu  hien  in  Ch'e"ng-tu  fu,  who  chanced  upon  the  idea  of  making  ox-horn  into 
rhinoceros-horn,  was  not  very  successful  in  passing  off  his  ware,  because  it  did  not 
exhibit  any  of  the  properties  of  rhinoceros-horn.  The  latter  is  indeed  a  unique  product 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS 


169 


The  Chou  li  has  a  report  on  the  office  of  the  horn-collectors  (kio 
whose  task  it  was  to  collect  teeth,  horns,  and  bones  in  mountains 
and  marshy  places.1  Che"ng  R'ang-ch'Sng  of  the  second  century  A.D. 
comments  that  the  big  ones  among  these  objects  came  from  the  ele- 
phant and  rhinoceros,  those  of  small  dimensions  came  from  Cer- 
vidae.  They  did  not  pick  up  ox-horns.  The  word  kio  ("horn")  is 


FIG.  24. 
Bronze  Rhyton  attributed  to  Chou  Period  (from  Kin  ski  so). 

used  also  in  the  sense  of  a  vessel  carved  from  horn;  and  there  are 
several  types  of  ancient  bronze  vessels,  the  names  of  which  are  written 
with  characters  combined  with  the  classifier  kio  ("horn").  This 
would  hardly  be  the  case  if  these  various  bronze  forms  did  not  go 
back  to  older  vessels  carved  from  horn.  He  who  will  study  the 
illustrations  of  these  cups  in  the  Po  ku  t'u  lu,  or  in  the  T'u  shu  tsi 
ch'&ng,  where  they  are  reproduced  after  the  former  work,  will  be  struck 
by  the  fact  that  they  do  not  exhibit  the  slightest  resemblance  to  ox- 

of  nature  and  has  no  substitute.  A  very  interesting  piece  of  ancient  Japanese  pot- 
tery in  the  Imperial  Museum  of  Tokyo  (figured  by  N.  G.  MUNRO,  Prehistoric  Japan, 
p.  483)  is  made  in  imitation  of  an  animal  s  horn,  bearing  a  striking  resemblance  to 
a  rhinoceros-horn. 

1  BIOT,  Chou  li,  Vol.  I,  p.  378.   The  Chou  li  describes  the  rhinoceros-horn  as  yellow 
(Vol.  II,  p.  586). 


1 70  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

horns,  but  display  most  elegant  shapes  of  soft,  rounded  outlines,  such  as 
could  have  been  carved  only  from  rhinoceros-horn.  Moreover,  these 
horn  vessels  were  differentiated  according  to  their  capacities :  the  vessel 
kio  (No.  2218)  containing  one  pint  (sh&ng);  the  vessel  ku  (No.  6221), 
two  pints;  the  vessel  chi  (No.  1925),  three  pints; l  the  vessel  kio  ("horn"), 
four  pints;2  the  vessel  kung  or  kuang  (No.  6393),  seven  pints.  All  of 
these  served  the  same  purpose, — they  were  filled  with  wine;  and  the 
ancient  tradition  is  that  the  bad  or  tardy  disciple,  or  whoever  had 
violated  a  rule  or  lost  a  game,  was  forced  to  empty  the  horn  at  a  draught 
by  way  of  punishment.3  Now,  there  could  be  no  greater  absurdity  than 
to  suppose  that  these  drinking-horns  were  veritable  ox-horns,  whether 
from  a  wild  or  domesticated  ox,  and  were  emptied  at  a  draught  by  those 
wretched  fellows.  Every  former  German  student  knows  from  experi- 
ence that  an  ox-horn  contains  such  a  volume  of  liquor,  that  even  the 
strongest  drinker  in  the  world  could  not  empty  it  at  a  draught ;  and  every 
one  who  has  lived  among  the  Chinese  is  acquainted  with  those  tiny  bits 
of  porcelain  cups  from  which  they  enjoy  their  hot  rice-wine  during 
meals,  and  knows  how  limited  their  abilities  in  Baccho  are.  The 
punishment  of  forcing  a  negligent  student  to  do  away  with  a  quantity 
of  wine  contained  in  a  buffalo-horn  would  certainly  have  been  most 
efficient  in  killing  him  instantly  and  saving  further  trouble  about  him; 
that,  however,  was  not  the  intention  of  the  law-giver.  Naturally, 
these  drinking-cups  of  early  antiquity  were  nothing  but  miniature  cups 
carved  from  rhinoceros-horn.  Indeed,  it  is  the  very  horn  of  the  rhino- 
ceros, which  renders  this  cup  eligible  as  a  fit  means  of  correction,  for  "the 
horn  of  the  rhinoceros  is  terrible  to  its  enemies;  and  for  this  reason  the 
holy  emperors  of  old,  in  condemning  a  man  to  empty  a  cup  by  way  of 
punishment,  wanted  it  to  be  made  from  rhinoceros-horn." 4  The 
terror  which  the  animal  was  able  to  inspire  in  man  should  be  brought 
home  to  the  mind  of  the  culprit,  and  this  was  the  essential  point  of  his 
punishment.  Similar  was  the  idea  when  the  rhinoceros-horn  cup  was 
emptied  on  the  occasion  of  a  vow;  as  in  the  case  of  the  three  lords  who 
pledged  fidelity  to  the  King  of  Tsin,  with  imprecations  of  calamities  to 


1  According  to  Shuo  wtn  (Ch.  1 1 ,  p.  4),  four  pints;  while  the  vessel  shang  (No.  9744) 
held  three  pints. 

1  Compare  the  dictionary  Kuang  ya  by  Chang  I,  written  in  the  first  part  of  the 
third  century  (Ch.  8,  p.  5  b;  edition  of  Han  Wei  ts'ung  shu). 

1  Compare  BIOT,  Chou  li,  Vol.  I,  p.  259;  Vol.  II,  p.  17.  In  one  passage  of  the  Li  ki 
(ed.  COUVREUR,  Vol.  II,  p.  618),  horns  (together  with  kia)  appear  as  sacrificial  cups, 
from  which  to  pour  out  libations  to  the  ancestors. 

4  According  to  Yiin  hui,  as  quoted  by  A.  TSCHEPE  (Histoire  du  royaume  de  Tsin, 
p.  308,  Shanghai,  1910). 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  171 

themselves  should  they  break  their  word.1  As  Wang  Fu  says  in  the 
Po  ku  t'u  lu  (quoted  above,  p.  131),  the  rhinoceros  represented  on  the 
bronze  wine-kettles  of  the  Shang  period  was  a  fit  emblem  to  serve  as  a 
warning  to  the  drinker,  and  to  inculcate  in  him  moderation:  as  the 
rhinoceros  is  capable  of  doing  injury  to  man,  so  excessive  indulgence 
in  spirits  might  harm  him.2 

We  now  recognize  that  the  rhinoceros,  looked  upon  as  a  moral  and 
educational  factor,  moves  on  the  same  line  as  the  monoceros  hiai-chai 
discussed  above  (p.  115),  which  is  able  to  decide  judicial  proceedings.3 
This  inward  affinity  proves  that  this  monoceros  is  a  legitimate  offshoot 
of  the  rhinoceros.  We  have  seen  that  the  single-horned  rhinoceros  se 
existed  in  the  country  of  Ch'u  in  the  beginning  of  the  Chou  dynasty 
(p.  1 60),  and  it  was  among  the  people  of  Ch'u  that  the  notion  and  word 
hiai  chai  originated  (p.  115).  The  transformation  into  a  goat  of  what 
originally  was  the  rhinoceros  was  developed  by  the  notion  of  "butting" 
under  the  influence  of  a  legend  emanating  from  Ch'u,  which  unfortunate- 
ly is  lost. 

In  past  times  the  rhinoceros  was  so  plentiful  in  the  home  of  the 
Chinese,  that  carvings  from  its  horn  belonged  to  the  common  household 
objects,  especially  at  the  period  before  the  utilization  of  metals,  when 
wood,  bone,  horn,  antler,  and  stone  furnished  the  material  for  the  making 
of  implements. 

There  are  other  objects  stated  to  have  been  made  of  rhinoceros- 
horn,  where  the  supposition  that  ox-horn  might  be  involved  is  again 
out  of  the  question.  In  the  biography  of  Li  Se,  who  died  in  B.C.  2o8,4 
objects  carved  from  rhinoceros-horn  and  ivory  (si  siang  &'*")  are  men- 
tioned, and  classed  among  objets  de  vertu.6  Implements  of  ox-horn 
would  certainly  not  rank  in  this  category.  According  to  Hou  Han  shu? 
seals  were  cut  out  of  rhinoceros-horn  and  ivory.  Everybody  knows  the 

1  TSCHEPE,  /.  c.  The  warlike  character  of  the  rhinoceros  is  still  indicated  by  the  lit- 
erary designation  Si  PU  for  the  Board  of  War  (Ping  pu)  and  the  rhinoceros  forming 
the  badge  of  the  ninth  grade  of  the  military  officials. 

1  The  rhinoceros  as  a  means  of  punishment  appears  also  in  the  case  of  Wan  of 
Sung,  who  paid  the  penalty  of  his  crimes  by  being  bound  up  in  a  rhinoceros-hide  (7*50 
chuan,  Chuang  kung,  twelfth  year:  LEGGE,  Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  V,  p.  89). 

*  In  the  time  of  the  philosopher  Wang  Ch'ung,  who  wrote  his  work  Lun  king  in 
82  or  83  A.D.,  Kao  Yao  and  this  creature  were  painted  in  the  courtyards  of  public 
buildings;  the  latter,  in  agreement  with  the  ancient  definitions,  apparently  as  a  goat 
with  a  single  horn,  for  it  instinctively  knew  the  guilty.  When  Kao  Yao  administered 
justice  and  entertained  doubts  of  a  man's  guilt,  he  ordered  this  goat  to  disentangle 
the  case:  it  butted  the  guilty  party,  but  spared  the  innocent  (FORKE,  Lun-hfing, 
pt.  n,  p.  321). 

4  GILES,  Biographical  Dictionary,  p.  464. 

5  Shi  ki,  Ch.  87,  p.  2  b. 
8  Ch.  40,  p.  5  a. 


172  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

square  and  rectangular  cubes  in  which  Chinese  seals  are  shaped,  and 
to  cut  such  a  seal  out  of  ox-horn  is  impossible. 

Finally,  the  memorable  passage  in  the  Chou  li  from  which  we  started, 
and  that  is  discussed  in  the  following  chapter,  regarding  the  manufacture 
of  hide  armor,  is  sufficient  evidence  in  itself  that  the  hide  in  question 
is  only  that  of  the  rhinoceros.  Mr.  Giles  renders  the  words  se  and  si 
indiscriminately  by  "bovine  animal;  "it  is  manifest,  however,  from  the 
text  in  question,  that  se  and  si  are  two  distinct  animals,  but  can  by  no 
means  be  two  distinct  bovine  animals.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  Chou  li 
speaks  of  three  kinds  of  cuirasses, —  those  made  from  the  hide  of  the 
two-horned  rhinoceros  (si),  which  consist  of  seven  layers,  and  will  last  a 
hundred  years;  those  made  from  the  hide  of  the  single-horned  rhinoceros 
(se) ,  which  consist  of  six  layers,  and  will  last  two  Hundred  years ;  and  those 
made  from  a  combination  of  both  hides,  which  consist  of  five  layers,  and 
will  last  three  hundred  years.  The  skin  of  the  rhinoceros  was  utilized 
for  the  manufacture  of  hide  armor,  because  it  was  the  thickest  and 
strongest  known  in  the  animal  kingdom,1  and  because  the  rhinoceros 
was  justly  considered  a  strong,  warlike,  and  long-lived  creature  (see 
p.  159);  and  the  qualities  of  the  animal  were  believed  to  be  transfused 
into  the  body  of  the  wearer  of  the  cuirass.  The  single-horned  rhinoceros 
was  the  bigger  and  stronger  of  the  two  species  known ;  and  for  this  reason 
armor  from  its  hide  was  believed  to  last  twice  as  long  as  that  of  the 
two-horned  kind.  We  notice  that  there  is  a  close  interrelation  between 
the  number  of  layers  of  the  hide  and  the  number  of  years  that  the 
armor  is  supposed  to  endure.  All  this  becomes  intelligible  only  if  we 
interpret  the  two  words  se  and  si  in  the  manner  that  has  been  proposed.2 
But  what  would  the  interpretation  be  if  the  armor  of  the  Chou  had  been 
made  from  the  hide  of  wild  bovine  animals?  The  passage,  in  this  case, 
could  receive  no  intelligent  and  convincing  interpretation.  That  bovine 
hide  can  be  utilized  in  the  making  of  armor,  nobody  denies.  It  is 
utterly  inconceivable,  however,  that  the  ancient  Chinese  should  have 
taken  the  trouble  to  hunt  wild  bovine  animals,  in  order  to  secure  their 
skins  for  cuirasses,  since  they  were  in  possession  of  plenty  of  domestic 
cattle  from  which  leather  was  obtainable;  and  this  one  certainly  could 

1  The  toughness  and  durability  of  rhinoceros-hide  are  indicated  also  by  its  utiliza- 
tion in  the  coffin  of  the  Son  of  Heaven,  which  was  fourfold.    The  innermost  coffin  was 
formed  by  hide  of  water-buffalo  and  rhinoceros,  each  three  inches  thick.    This  leather 
case  was  enclosed  in  a  coffin  of  white  poplar  timber;  and  this  one,  in  two  others  of 
catalpa-wood  (CouvREUR,  Li  ki,  Vol.  I,  p.  184;  LEGGE'S  translation  in  Sacred  Books 
of  the  East,  Vol.  XXVII,  p.  158). 

2  The  fact  that  the  general  notion  of  leather  and  hide  (p'i  ko)  was  closely  associ- 
ated with  rhinoceros-skin  is  evidenced  by  Yen  Shi-ku  defining  that  term  by  the  words 
si  se  (Ts'ien  Han  shu,  Ch.  28  B,  p.  16  b). 


HISTORY  OF  THE  RHINOCEROS  173 

have  been  employed  with  greater  facility  and  the  same  result  for  the 
purpose  of  defence.  And  if  they  had  really  employed  cowhide  to  this 
end,  why  should  the  Chou  li  not  simply  state  that  cuirasses  were  made  of 
this  material  (niu  p'i)?  Why  should  it  introduce  the  story  of  two  won- 
derful animals  se  and  si,  interwoven  with  religious  beliefs  of  longevity, 
if  nothing  but  a  mere  every-day  cowhide  was  at  issue?  On  the  other 
hand,  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  skin  of  ox  or  cow  was  never, 
for  religious  reasons,  employed  in  ancient  China  in  the  making  of  armor. 
The  ox  was  a  sacred,  and  in  a  measure  inviolable  animal,  looked  upon  as 
the  helpmate  in  gaining  man's  daily  bread.  He  was  the  animal  sacrificed 
to  the  deities  Heaven  and  Earth.  There  is  no  account  to  the  effect 
that  neat-leather  was  ever  employed  for  cuirasses;  while  the  tradition 
that  rhinoceros-skin  is  a  fit  material  for  this  purpose,  as  we  saw,  has 
been  maintained  even  by  later  authors. 


II.  DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  ARCHAIC  PERIOD 

"Your  subject  has  heard  that  the  army  of  the  Son  of 
Heaven  is  rather  maintained  for  the  assurance  of  peace 
than  for  the  purpose  of  aggressive  war.  The  Empire  and 
all  its  inhabitants  being  your  own,  is  it  worth  while  wast- 
ing a  day's  business  on  the  land  of  the  Barbarians,  or  driv- 
ing a  single  horse  to  exhaustion  on  their  behalf?" 

Memorial  of  HUAI-NAN-TSE  to  the  Emperor  Wu. 

Defensive  armor,  as  employed  in  the  epoch  of  antiquity,  is  char- 
acterized by  the  absence  of  any  metal.1  During  the  Chou  period 
(B.C.  1122-255)  harness  was  exclusively  made  of  hide  (lorica  of  the 
Romans).  Ts'ai  Ch'^n,  in  his  commentary  to  the  Shu  king  (published 
in  1210),  makes  this  correct  general  observation  on  the  subject:  "In 
ancient  canonical  literature  it  is  a  question  only  of  cuirasses  (kid, 
No.  1167)  and  leather  helmets  (chou,  No.  2463) .  Prior  to  the  time  of  the 
Ts'in,  metal  armor  (k'ai,  No.  5798)  and  metal  helmets  (tou  mou,  Nos. 
11,424,  8041)  were  not  in  existence.  The  ancients  availed  them- 
selves of  hide  for  the  making  of  armor  (kia).  From  the  time  of  the 

1  It  is  not  the  object  of  the  present  investigation  to  give  a  detailed  history  of 
Chinese  defensive  armor  of  all  periods,  or  to  describe  each  and  every  type  of  armor 
mentioned  in  Chinese  records.  Such  a  task  would  require  dwelling  at  great  length  on 
the  military  organization  and  activities  of  every  dynasty,  and  would  swell  into  several 
volumes  of  questionable  practical  value.  It  is  merely  my  intention  to  outline  the 
principal  and  conspicuous  features  of  the  general  development  of  the  matter,  and  to 
emphasize  those  types  of  armor  which  are  of  particular  interest  to  the  archaeologist 
and  ethnologist.  Only  those  Chinese  records  which  have  a  real  value  for  an  historical 
consideration  of  this  subject  are  here  exhibited.  The  theories  of  the  philosophers 
and  the  later  legendary  inventions  are  historically  worthless,  and  only  interesting 
for  what  they  are  worth, —  in  their  quality  as  philosophy,  poetry,  or  folk-lore.  A 
pure  fable  it  is,  for  example,  when  the  philosopher  Kuan-tse  makes  Ch'i  Yu  (alleged 
B.C.  2698)  the  first  inventor  of  metal  armor  (k'ai),  and  when  as  late  a  work  as  the 
T'ai  po  yin  king  by  Li  Tsuan  of  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  (WvLiE,  Notes  on 
Chinese  Literature,  p.  90)  is  gracious  enough  to  ascribe  to  the  same  also  the  honor  of 
having  first  cut  hide  into  armor,  and  goes  on  to  construct  the  evolutionary  scheme 
that  Sh6n-nung  made  weapons  of  stone,  Huang-ti  of  jade,  and  Ch'i  Yu  of  bright  met- 
al. The  famous  Ts'ao  Chi  (192-232)  is  credited  with  the  statement  that  the  former 
emperors  bestowed  on  officials  an  armor  (k'ai)  called  "brilliant  like  ink"  (mo  kuang) 
and  another  called  "brilliant  like  light"  (ming  kuang),  one  suit  of  armor  with  a 
double  seat  in  the  trousers  (Liang  tang  [No.  10,727]  k'ai),  one  suit  of  ring  and  chain 
armor  (huan  so  k'ai),  and  one  suit  of  horse  mail.  This  text  is  not  well  authenticat- 
ed, and  is  hardly  deserving  of  historical  credence.  The  ring  and  chain  armor  is 
an  anachronism  in  view  of  Ts'ao  Chi's  time;  and  any  armor  of  the  designation  k'ai 
did  not  exist  under  the  ancient  emperors.  The  expression  huan  so  k'ai  occurring 
in  this  passage  is  explained  in  the  dictionary  Chtng  tse  t'ung  as  identical  with  so 
kia  ("chain  armor").  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'&ng,  in  reproducing  this  passage,  writes  mo 
kuang,  as  above;  P'ei  w$n  yiin  fu  has  in  its  place  hei  kuang  ("of  black  brilliancy"); 
and  Ko  chi  king  yuan  has  li  (No.  6870)  kuang,  which  seems  to  be  a  misprint.  The 
two  latter  works  write  the  character  tang  in  the  phrase  Hang  tang  k'ai  without  the 
classifier  145. 

174 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  ARCHAIC  PERIOD  175 

Ts'in  and  Han,  iron  armor  and  helmets  (pie  k'ai  mou)  gradually  came  into 
use.  These  two  characters  (k'ai  mou)  are  formed  with  the  classifier 
'metal '  (kin),  for  these  objects  were  made  from  iron."  This  chronologi- 
cal division  of  words  and  matters,  indeed,  corresponds  to  the  facts  as 
expressed  in  the  documents  of  literature.  The  comment  of  Ts'ai  Ch'e'n 
relates  to  the  speech  of  the  Prince  of  Lu,  Po  K'in,  son  of  Chou  Kung 
(Shu  king,  IV,  19),  in  which  he  admonished  his  soldiers  to  see  that  their 
cuirasses  and  helmets  were  well  sewed  together  (that  is,  were  in  good 
order),  and  that  the  laces  of  their  shields  were  well  secured.  In  this 
passage  the  three  means  for  making  the  complete  defensive  armor  of  the 
primeval  epoch  are  named;  and  these  are  followed  by  the  three  principal 
representatives  of  offensive  armor, —  the  bow,  the  long  and  the  short 
spears. 

We  meet  in  the  early  period  essentially  two  varieties  of  hide  armor, 
distinguished  by  two  different  words,  kia  (No.  1167)  and  kiai  (No.  1518). 
The  latter,  as  will  be  seen  (p.  195),  was  scale  armor,  composed  of  im- 
bricated leather  pieces  which  were  cut  out  in  the  shape  of  scales  (com- 
pare Plate  XIV).  The  former  was  a  cuirass  made  in  imitation  of  a 
coat.  Our  knowledge  of  this  device  is  mainly  founded  on  the  State 
Handbook  containing  the  ritual  and  institutes  of  the  Chou  dynasty, 
the  Chou  li.  A  special  office  of  armorers  was  instituted  at  the  Court  of 
the  Chou  dynasty;  they  were  called  han  jen,  "men  who  envelop  (han, 
No.  3809)  the  body  with  a  protective  contrivance."  The  manufacture 
of  these  military  leathern  costumes  is  minutely  described  in  the  Chou  li.1 

"The  armorers  make  the  cuirasses  (kid).  Those  made  from  the 
hide  of  the  two-horned  rhinoceros  (si)  consist  of  seven  layers  of  hide; 
those  made  from  the  hide  of  the  single-horned  rhinoceros  (se)  consist  of 
six  layers;  those  made  from  a  combination  of  both  hides  consist  of  five 
layers.  The  first  endure  a  hundred  years;  the  second,  two  hundred 
years;  the  third,  three  hundred  years.  In  order  to  accomplish  a  cuirass, 
first,  a  form  (dummy)  is  made, 2  and  then  the  hide  is  cut  in  accordance 
with  it.  The  hide  pieces  are  weighed;  and  two  piles  equal  in  weight 
are  apportioned,  the  one  for  the  upper,  the  other  for  the  lower  part 
of  the  cuirass.  The  long  strips,  into  which  the  hide  has  been  cut  up, 

1  BIOT,  Vol.  II,  p.  506.  The  work  of  Biot  is  here,  as  in  other  instances,  quoted 
for  easy  reference,  as  by  referring  to  Biot  the  Chinese  text  may  readily  be  looked  up; 
but  my  rendering  is  based  on  the  original  text,  and  on  several  points  deviates  from 
that  of  Biot,  and  fundamentally,  in  this  passage  descriptive  of  armor. 

1  The  dummy  was  patterned  according  to  the  figure  of  the  individual  for  whom 
the  cuirass  was  intended,  and  the  hide  was  tailored  and  adjusted  in  correspondence 
with  the  dummy.  It  was  left  on  the  latter  for  some  time,  until  it  was  thoroughly 
hardened  and  had  assumed  the  required  shape.  The  process  was  the  same  as  that  still 
practised  on  a  smaller  scale  by  the  Chinese  hatters,  who  fashion  their  caps  over  wooden 
models. 


176  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

are  laid  around  horizontally.  In  general  when  the  hide  has  not  been 
properly  cured,  the  cuirass  is  not  strong; l  when  the  hide  is  worn  out,  it 
will  wrinkle.  The  method  of  inspecting  cuirasses  is  as  follows:  the 
stitches,  when  examined,  must  be  fine  and  close;  the  inner  side  of  the 
hide  must  be  smooth;  the  seams  are  required  to  be  straight;  the  cuirass 
must  perfectly  fit  into  the  case  in  which  it  is  to  be  enclosed. 2  Then  it  is 
taken  up, 3  and  when  examined,  it  must  allow  of  ample  space.  When  it 
is  donned,  it  must  not  wrinkle.  When  the  stitches  are  examined,  and 
found  to  be  fine  and  close,  it  is  a  sign  that  the  hide  is  strong.  When 
the  inner  side  is  examined,  and  found  to  be  smooth,  the  material  is  well 
prepared  and  durable.  When  the  seams  are  examined,  and  found  to  be 
straight,  the  cutting  is  perfect.  When  it  is  rolled  up  and  placed  in  its 
case,  it  should  fold  closely.  When,  however,  it  is  taken  out,  it  should 
offer  ample  space  to  the  wearer,  and  it  is  then  beautiful.4  When  it  is 
donned  without  wrinkling,  it  will  gradually  adjust  itself  to  the  form  of 
the  trunk." 

We  gather  from  this  account  that  the  ancient  hide  corselets  were  not 
downright  primitive  affairs,  but  testify  to  an  advanced  stage  of  culture. 
Armor,  as  early  as  that  archaic  period,  was  individual,  and  carefully 
adapted  to  the  shape  of  the  body.  Its  weight  was  equally  balanced 
between  the  upper  and  lower  portions,  the  former  reaching  from  the 
shoulders  to  the  loins,  the  latter  from  the  loins  to  the  knees.  Ap- 
parently it  was  but  one  uniform  coat,  without  sleeves,  and  without  any 
separate  parts  for  protection,  as  nape-guards,  greaves,  knee-covers,  or 


1  BIOT  translates,  "En  ge'ne'ral,  si  la  fagon  n'est  point  parfaite,  la  cuirasse  n'est 
pas  solide."    And  COUVREUR  (Dictionnaire  chinois-frangais,  p.  799),  "Toute  cuirasse 
d'un  travail  imparfait  n'est  pas  solide."    My  rendering  is  based  on  the  comment  of 
Cheng  Ngo. 

2  The  cuirass  was  rolled  up  and  encased  in  a  covering,  presumably  of  hide.    This 
case  wasstyled  kao  (No.  5949),  a  wordnowused  in  thesense  of  "quiver."  Hide  bags  in 
which  to  preserve  armor  are  still  used  in  Tibet,  and  there  is  one  in  the  Museum's 
collection.    The  Chinese  now  avail  themselves  of  trunks  with  a  special  compartment 
in  the  lid  for  the  helmet  (compare  Plate  XLIII). 

'  The  first  test  that  the  cuirass  is  exposed  to  refers  to  its  fitting  into  the  case;  the 
second,  to  its  fitting  on  the  wearer;  for  this  purpose  it  is  taken  out  of  the  case. 

4  As  will  be  seen  from  Biot's  comment,  the  K'ien-lung  editors  hold  that  the  last 
two  qualities  are  difficult  to  reconcile,  as,  on  the  one  hand,  the  cuirass  must  fit  like 
a  coat  without  throwing  folds,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  must  have  ample  space  and 
splendor.  I  do  not  believe  that  this  objection  is  very  serious.  The  conditions  stipu- 
lated in  the  text  could  all,  indeed,  be  fulfilled.  The  essential  requisite  was  elasticity 
to  grant  full  freedom  of  motion;  the  cuirass  must  be  tight-fitting,  but  if  the  hide  is 
sufficiently  elastic,  "ample  space"  is  secured  to  the  wearer.  Owing  to  its  flexible 
character  it  could  be  readily  rolled  up,  and,  when  taken  out  of  its  case,  immediately 
reverted  to  its  original  shape,  so  that  it  could  be  donned  without  loss  of  time.  The 
word  ming  ("brilliant")  translated  by  BIOT  "alprs  elle  a  del'^clat,"  I  believe,  means 
something  like  "it  is  then  in  evidence,  it  fulfils  its  purpose." 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  ARCHAIC  PERIOD  177 

buskins. 1  The  hide  was  well  cured,  and  the  inner  side  cleaned  from  all 
adhering  impurities. 

My  conception  of  the  technicalities  in  the  construction  of  this  armor 
is  widely  different  from  that  of  BIOT  based  on  the  opinions  of  the  Chinese 
commentators.  These  interpret  that  the  cuirass  made  from  the  hide  of 
the  two-horned  rhinoceros  consisted  of  seven  pieces  sewed  together; 
that  from  the  hide  of  the  one-horned  rhinoceros,  of  six;  and  that  made 
from  a  combination  of  both,  of  five  pieces.  There  is  no  sense  in  this 
point  of  view  of  the  matter.  The  commentators  of  the  Han  and  later 
ages  were  unable  to  form  a  clear  idea  of  the  cuirass  peculiar  to  the  Chou 
period,  because  it  was  lost  in  their  time;  and  they  merely  applied  to  the 
latter  the  notions  which  they  had  gained  from  a  consideration  of  contem- 
poraneous armor.  The  armor  terminology  of  the  Han  was  read  into 
Chou  armor,  and  a  purely  philological  reconstruction  was  reached, 
which  hardly  corresponds  to  a  living  reality.  The  armor,  as  interpreted 
by  the  Chinese  scholars,  in  my  opinion,  is  technically  impossible,  and 
beyond  our  experience:  armor-suits  of  such  requirements  have  been 
made  nowhere  in  this  world,  and  in  all  likelihood  never  could  have  been 
made.  * 

There  is  no  raison  d'etre  in  assuming  that  the  first  should  have  been 

1  Red  knee-covers  and  buskins  are  mentioned  in  the  Shi  king,  but  they  were 
outfits  belonging  to  the  costume  of  ceremony,  not  of  war  (LEGGE,  Chinese  Classics, 
Vol.  IV,  Prolegomena,  p.  157,  and  p.  402). 

1  For  technical  reasons  it  is  highly  improbable  that  the  hide  armor  of  the  Chou 
was  sewed  together  from  different  pieces,  because  such  a  process  would  considerably 
diminish  its  strength  and  capability  of  resistance,  and  a  blow  struck  at  the  seams 
would  have  had  dangerous  consequences.  On  the  contrary,  wherever  hide  armor 
was  made,  the  principle  was  quite  naturally  developed  to  make  it,  as  far  as  possible, 
in  one  piece ;  and  this  is  exactly  the  point  where  the  chief  purpose  of  defensive  armor 
comes  in.  If  the  Chou  cuirass  had  been  patched  together  from  odd  pieces,  as  the 
later  Chinese  philologists  would  make  us  believe,  it  could  not  have  been  a  defensive 
armor  proper,  but  simply  a  skin  garment.  W.  HOUGH  (Primitive  American  Armor, 
Report  U.  S.  National  Museum,  1893,  p.  641)  informs  us  that  "American  skin  armor 
was  always  made  in  one  piece  folded  over,  sewed  above  the  shoulders,  leaving  an 
orifice  for  the  head  and  with  a  hole  cut  out  of  the  left  side  for  the  left  arm,  the  right 
side  of  the  garment  remaining  open;  the  skin  was  often  doubled,  but  more  frequently 
the  coat  was  reinforced  with  pieces  of  thick  hide."  Indeed,  our  Chou  armor,  cum 
grano  salts,  can  have  been  no  other  in  type  and  appearance  than  the  hide  armor  of 
the  American  Indians,  as  figured  on  our  Plate  XI  and  by  HOUGH  on  Plates  XVI-XIX, 
although  it  may  have  been  somewhat  more  elegant  in  its  fit  to  the  individual 
wearer.  HOUGH  (pp.  645,  646)  furnishes  several  examples  of  the  fact  that  hide  armor 
in  America  was  worked  in  several  layers;  thus,  two,  three,  or  more  folds  of  the 
strongest  hides  were  employed  by  the  Nass  Indians  of  the  Tsimshian  stock;  a  great 
many  folds  of  dressed  antelope-skins  by  the  Shoshoni ;  and  the  Navajc  singer  chants 
of  suits  of  armor  made  of  several  layers  of  buckskin.  Likewise  A.  P.  NIBLACK  (The 
Coast  Indians  of  Southern  Alaska,  Report  U.  S.  National  Museum,  1888,  p.  268) 
states  that  the  leather  jerkins  formerly  made  in  Alaska  were  of  one,  two,  or  three 
thicknesses  of  hide,  and  in  itself  offered  considerable  resistance  to  arrows,  spears,  or 
dagger  thrusts.  Armor  of  rhinoceros-hide,  according  to  Nachtigall,  is  still  made  and 
employed  by  the  Arabs  of  the  Sudan  (H.  SCHURTZ,  Grundzuge  einer  Philosophic 
der  Tracht,  p.  114). 


178  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

made  in  seven,  the  second  in  six,  and  the  third  in  five  pieces;  moreover, 
they  double  these  figures,  and  conjecture  that  the  upper  portion 
(shang  lu)  and  the  lower  portion  (hia  lu)  each  consisted  of  this  number 
of  pieces.  But  how  can  such  an  affair  be  realized?  It  is  perfectly 
conceivable  that  a  coat  is  composed  of  six  pieces  (two  in  front,  two  in 
the  back,  and  two  on  the  sides) ;  any  other  even  number — as  four,  eight, 
ten,  or  more  —  likewise  is  imaginable.  It  is  not  easily  conceivable, 
however,  as  being  incompatible  with  a  normal  state  of  affairs,  that  a 
cuirass  should  have  consisted  of  seven  or  five  pieces  (or  any  larger  odd 
number  of  pieces) ,  as  the  Chinese  commentators  and  Biot  would  have 
us  believe.  This  supposition  is  not  very  reasonable.  The  symmetry  of 
the  human  body  inevitably  results  in  principle  in  a  strictly  symmetrical 
style  and  technique  of  costume,  and  of  armor  especially:  asymmetric 
armor  nowhere  exists.1  Normal  harness  of  the  primitive  stages  of  culture 
is  usually  composed  of  an  even  number  of  pieces;  and  for  this  reason,  the 
Chinese  interpretation  is  improbable.  Even  granted  that  another 
point  of  view  is  possible  in  theory,  —  that,  for  example,  the  harness 
of  seven  pieces  may  have  had  four  in  the  back  and  three  in  front,  or 
three  in  the  back,  two  on  the  sides,  and  two  in  front,  etc.,2 — we  still  face 
the  mystery  of  the  threefold  classification  graduated  according  to  age: 
what  should  be  the  reason  that  the  cuirass  of  seven  pieces  is  supposed 
to  last  a  hundred  years,  that  of  six  pieces  two  hundred  years,  and  that 
of  five  pieces  three  hundred  years?  This  is  the  salient  point,  to  which 
no  Chinese  commentator  has  paid  due  attention;  but  it  is  obvious  that 
this  belief  is  associated  with  the  two  animals  si  and  se  furnishing  the  hide 
for  the  cuirasses,  and  that  the  supposed  differentiation  of  the  age  of  the 
two  creatures  is  transferred  to  their  products.  Certain  it  is  that  the 
philological  interpretation  of  the  Chinese  literati  must  be  at  fault.  Their 
fundamental  error  lies  in  the  misunderstanding  of  the  word  shu; 3  and  in 

1 1  am,  of  course,  aware  of  the  fact  that  in  European  armor,  which  is  more  or 
less  artificial,  a  studied  asymmetry  is  sometimes  displayed  (see,  for  instance, 
BASHFORD  DEAN,  Catalogue  of  European  Arms  and  Armor,  p.  64).  The  above  re- 
mark refers  only  to  the  spontaneous  productions  of  primitive  cultures. 

2  Such  an  arrangement,  moreover,  I  must  confess,  would  appear  to  me  as  too 
sophisticated,  and  technically  too  complex  for  such  a  simple  and  primitive  age  as 
that  of  the  Chou.  In  order  to  grasp  the  character  of  its  culture-objects,  we  should 
collect  experience  from  the  life  of  primitive  peoples  as  we  actually  observe  it  (com- 
pare Plate  XI). 

1  The  text  unfortunately  is  very  succinct,  and  merely  contains  the  terms  ts*i  shu, 
leu  shu,  and  wu  shu.  The  Chinese  commentators,  accordingly,  take  the  word  shu 
(No.  10,061)  in  the  sense  of  "hide  pieces  laid  out  side  by  side  and  then  joined  to- 
gether," but  this  is  a  point  which  I  venture  to  contest.  In  my  opinion,  the  question 
can  be  satisfactorily  decided,  not  only  from  a  technological,  but  from  a  philological 
point  of  view  as  well,  if  we  interpret  the  word  shu  in  the  sense  of  "strata,  or  layers 
of  hide  pressed  together."  The  word  shu  is  capable  of  assuming  many  significations; 
its  original  meaning  is,  "to  adhere,  to  place  one  thing  on  another,  to  tie  together, 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  ARCHAIC  PERIOD  179 

the  venture  of  dragging  in  the  terms  cha  (No.  127)  and  ye  ("leaf"), 
which  are  peculiar  to  the  Han  period,  but  which  did  not  exist  with  this 
meaning  and  with  reference  to  armor  in  the  age  of  the  Chou.  These 
two  terms  refer  to  laminse  or  plates  of  hide  or  metal  reinforcing  armor 
(see  pp.  196,  210),  and  it  will  be  seen  that  this  type  of  armor  springs 
up  only  from  under  the  Han.  It  certainly  had  not  come  into  existence 
under  the  Chou,  as  proved  by  the  description  of  the  armor  given  above 
after  the  Chou  li,  in  which  those  terms  are  absent.  Again,  it  is  an  ab- 
surdity to  speak  of  an  armor  consisting  of  seven,  six,  or  five  laminae  or 
plates,  as  these  are  of  small  dimensions,  and  a  very  large  number  of 
them  is  required  to  make  a  suit  of  armor. l  The  verdict  of  the  Chinese 
scholars  must  therefore  be  repealed.  It  is  solely  to  the  very  text  of  the 
Chou  U,  which  is  sound  and  sane,  that  we  must  appeal  for  a  correct 
understanding  of  the  structure  of  this  cuirass. 

We  can  understand,  in  my  estimation,  only  that  the  suits  were  com- 
posed of  seven,  six,  and  five  superposed  layers  or  thicknesses  of  hide, 
respectively,  as  in  fact  hide  armor  has  been  produced.  Then  the  whole 
passage  becomes  intelligible.  There  is  a  sensible  gradation  of  three 
coats,  regulated  according  to  the  quality  believed  to  inhere  in  the  hide. 
That  of  the  two-horned  rhinoceros  ranks  lowest  in  strength,  therefore 
requiring  seven  layers,2  and  lasts  only  a  hundred  years.  That  of  the 
single-horned  rhinoceros,  which  is  the  stronger  animal,  is  superior, 
therefore  requiring  only  six  layers,  and  yet  it  will  last  two  hundred 
years.  That  of  both  kinds  combined  is  the  best  and  strongest  of  all, 
therefore  demanding  only  five  layers,  and  will  last  three  hundred  years 
(see  also  p.  172).  The  hide,  accordingly,  was  cut  up  in  horizontal  see- 
to  unite,  combine,  to  assemble,"  whence  the  significance  "layer,  stratum"  is  doubtless 
derived;  whereas  there  is  no  evidence  that  it  was  ever  understood  in  the  sense  of 
"piece."  COUVREUR  explains  it  as  a  numerative  of  the  pieces  of  an  armor,  and  cites 
from  Ts'ien  Han  shu,  "an  armor  composed  of  three  pieces"  (san  shu  chi  kia).  It 
is  inconceivable  that  such  a  device  ever  existed.  It  certainly  was  a  hide  armor 
consisting  of  three  layers  of  skin.  A.  CONRADY  (Eine  indochinesische  Causativ- 
Denominativ-Bildung,  p.  165)  has  succeeded  well  in  tracing  the  etymology  of  the 
word  shu.  The  ancient  pronunciation,  according  to  him,  was  buk  (Japanese  Suk); 
the  primeval  form  to  be  supposed  is  grog,  identical  with  the  Tibetan  root  grog  in 
s-grog-pa  ("to  tie"),  s-grog  ("rope,  strap"),  and  grogs  ("fellow,  friend").  This 
derivation  also  sheds  light  on  the  Chinese  word  shu  assuming  the  significance  "strip 
or  layer  of  hide  or  leather." 

1  It  is  therefore  an  anachronism  when  the  passage  in  the  text  of  the  Chou  li 
(GILES,  No.  4437)  is  translated,  "In  coats  of  mail,  it  is  desirable  for  the  plates  to  fit 
evenly."  Anything  like  plates  is  then  out  of  the  question.  What  is  meant  in  this 
passage  is  (and  it  is  so  understood  by  the  Chinese  commentators)  that  the  hide  used 
in  the  cuirasses  should  not  wrinkle.  BIOT  very  aptly  translates,  "On  la  revfit,  et 
on  demande  qu'il  n'y  ait  pas  d'ine'galites  dans  les  coutures  (qu'elles  ne  grimacent 
pas)." 

1 A  cuirass  of  seven  thicknesses  is  mentioned  in  the  biography  of  I  Shen  (Tang 
shu,  Ch.  170,  p.  2). 


180  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

tions  into  large  and  thin  sheets,  such  as  could  be  weighed  and  divided 
into  equal  parts.  It  would  be  unreasonable  to  infer  that  a  rhinoceros- 
skin  in  its  natural  state  of  thickness  could  be  properly  cured,  and  then 
utilized  for  the  making  of  an  armor:  the  skin  was  split  into  strata  evenly 
thick,  w'hich  were  cured,  probably  boiled,  and  according  to  the  number 
required  were  tightly  pressed  together.  The  fact  that  the  harness  was 
not  composed  of  seven,  six,  and  five  pieces  becomes  sufficiently  evident 
also  from  the  rule  that  the  long  hide  strips  were  laid  around  the  trunk 
horizontally; l  naturally,  for  this  was  the  most  rational  and  efficient  use 
that  could  have  been  made  of  them.  In  all  probability,  the  entire 
affair  consisted  of  only  two  main  parts, —  the  corselet  enveloping  the 
trunk,  and  the  skirt  protecting  the  thighs, — both  being  closely  joined 
together.  Either  part  could  have  been  made  from  a  single  piece  of 
hide.  The  sewing,  of  course,  refers  to  the  various  layers  of  hide  and 
the  seams.  How  the  garment  was  put  on  is  not  indicated  in  the  text; 
but  it  seems  plausible  to  infer  that  it  was  open  in  the  middle  of  the  front. 
By  a  very  similar  process,  cuirasses  were  still  turned  out  in  northern 
China  and  Mongolia  in  recent  times.  The  American  Consul  BEDLOE  2 
reported  on  this  subject  as  follows:  "The  original  armor  of  the  north 
(Manchuria  and  Mongolia)  seems  to  have  been  leather,  and  in  shape 
was  more  like  a  blouse  than  a  jerkin.  In  the  course  of  years  the  skin 
was  doubled,  trebled,  and  quadrupled,  and  a  Chinese  lower  garment 
that  might  be  called  leather  greaves  and  cuirasses  combined  was  added 
to  the  upper  one.  The  Mongolian  nomads  learned  at  an  early  age  that 
a  coat  or  cuirass  made  of  sheepskin  in  several  thicknesses  makes  a  very 
warm  garment  and  would  turn  a  spear,  arrow,  or  sword.  Apparel  of 
this  class  is  in  use  to-day  and  may  be  bought  very  cheaply  in  Shan- 
tung." In  the  same  manner  the  cuirasses  of  the  Mongols  invading 
Europe  were  wrought.  Thomas  of  Spalato,  an  historian  of  the  thir- 
teenth century,  describes  their  defensive  armor  as  made  of  ox-hide, 
several  layers  of  it  being  so  tightly  pressed  together  that  the  armor  is 
quite  impermeable,  and  affords  considerable  protection. 3  This  is 
confirmed  by  MARCO  PoLO,4  who  relates  that  the  Mongols  wear  on  their 
backs  armor  of  cuirbouly,  prepared  from  buffalo  and  other  hides,  which 


1  BIOT  translates  with  perfect  correctness,  "On  prend  leur  longueur  totale  pour 
faire  le  contour  de  la  cuirasse." 

1  Consular  Reports  on  Commerce,  Manufactures,  etc.,  No.  147,  p.  494  (Washing- 
ton, 1892). 

1  G.  STRAKOSCH-GROSSMANN,  Der  Einfall  der  Mongolen  in  Mitteleuropa,  p.  28 
(Innsbruck,  1893).  The  Tlingit  cuirass  on  Plate  XI  consists  of  two  superposed  layers 
of  elk-hide. 

4  Ed.  of  YULE  and  CORDIER,  Vol.  I,  p.  260. 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  ARCHAIC  PERIOD  181 

is  very  strong.1  Japanese  accounts  of  the  Mongol  attempt  to  invade 
Japan  allude  likewise  to  the  cuirasses  of  the  Mongols. 2 

The  leather  corselets  kia  seem  to  have  been  in  general  use,  even  at  an 
early  date,  among  the  people  of  the  state  of  Ts'in,  who  were  prepared  to 
don  them  in  case  of  war,  as  mentioned  in  a  song  of  the  Shi  king.3  MENG- 
TSE4  speaks  of  the  strong  armor  and  the  sharp  weapons  of  Ts'in  and 
Ch'u.  Siun  K'ing,  a  philosopher  of  the  third  century  B.C.,  ascribes 
armor  of  sharkskin  and  rhinoceros-hide  to  the  people  of  Ch'u;  both  were 
hard  like  metal  and  stone.5  This  is  the  more  remarkable,  as  the  author 
goes  on  to  say  that  the  people  of  Ch'u  possessed  the  iron  and  steel  of 
Yuan,  a  place  corresponding  to  the  modern  Nan-yang  in  Ho-nan  Prov- 
ince, and  that  their  lance  and  arrow  heads,  apparently  of  iron  or  steel, 
were  sharp  like  the  stings  of  wasps  and  scorpions.  We  may  therefore 
infer  that  the  people  of  Ch'u,  despite  their  acquaintance  with  iron,  had 
not  yet  advanced  to  the  stage  of  iron  armor.  Their  hide  armor  must 
have  been  light  in  weight;  for  they  are  reported  to  be  "light  and  agile, 
fiery  and  swift,  and  rapid  like  a  hurricane."  In  general,  however,  or  in 
other  states,  these  cuirasses  seem  to  have  been  heavy  and  uncomfortable; 
for  we  hear  that  they  were  donned  only  during  battle,  but  rolled  up  and 
carried  by  the  soldiers  during  the  march.8  They  did  not  allow  the 
wearer  to  run;  and  when  driven  to  flight,  the  soldiers  threw  them  off, 
trailing  their  arms  behind.7 

From  a  text  in  Tso  chuan 8  it  appears  that  rhinoceros  cuirasses  were 


1  Buffalo-hide  came  up  as  a  substitute  for  rhinoceros-hide  in  the  making  of  armor 
during  the  Tang  period  (p.  162). 

1  A.  PFIZMAIER,  Die  Geschichte  der  Mongolen-Angriffe  auf  Japan  (Sitzungs- 
berichte  Wiener  Akademie,  1874,  P-  I51)- 

1  LEGGE,  Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  IV,  p.  202. 

4  Ibid.,  Vol.  II,  p.  135. 

5  This  passage  is  quoted  also  by  Se-ma  Ts'ien  (CHAVANNES,  Les  Me"moires  histo- 
riques  de  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  217).    The  Wu  pei  chi,  an  extensive  work  on  mili- 
tary science  written  under  the  Ming  dynasty  by  Mao  Yuan-i,  and  published  in 
1621,  comments  on  this  statement  of  Siun  K'ing  that  sharkskin  armor  equals  rhino- 
ceros-hide armor  in  hardness,  and  is  therefore  styled  shui  si  ("water-rhinoceros"), 
because  the  shark  is  produced  in  the  water.    Another  instance  of  sharkskin  armor 
occurs  in  the  Tung  kten  kang  mu  (quoted  in  Tu  shu  tsi  ch'btg),  where  it  is  ascribed 
to  the  Mongols.    Shagreen  seems  to  have  been  utilized  by  the  Chinese  in  olden  times, 
especially  in  saddlery.  Theimperial  "caparisons  made  of  shagreen"  (CHAVANNES,  f.c., 
p.  214),  I  believe,  are  identical  with  the  modem  saddles  mounted  with  shagreen.    It 
is  used  also  for  mounting  the  sheaths  and  handles  of  knives  and  swords,  even  for  the 
decoration  of  snuff-bottles.    A  detailed  investigation  of  the  subject  is  contained  in 
H.  L.  JOLY  and  I.  HOGITARO  (The  Sword  Book,  pp.  3  et  seq.  of  the  appendix). 

•  As  attested  by  Sun-tse  (see  L.  GILES,  Sun  Tzfl  on  the  Art  of  War,  p.  58,  London, 
1910).  The  case  in  which  the  rolled-up  cuirass  was  enclosed  was  styled  kao  (No.  5949). 

1  As  is  evident  from  a  passage  of  Meng-tse  (LEGGE,  Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  II, 
p.  130). 

8  LEGGE.  Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  V,  p.  290. 


182  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

also  varnished  with  a  red  lacquer.  They  are  frequently  alluded  to  in 
that  work,1  and  were  doubtless  the  usual  means  of  body  protection 
during  the  whole  Ch'un-ts'iu  period  (B.C.  722-481).  The  states  drew 
up  schedules  of  their  weapons  and  defensive  armor.  In  one  passage, 2  a 
distinction  is  made  between  soldiers  wearing  armor  lashed  with  cords 
(tsu  kia,  No.  11,828)  and  those  who  had  donned  an  armor  of  silken  fab- 
rics (p'i  lien,  Nos.  8769,  7151).  It  is  clear  only  that  two  kinds  of 
armor  are  here  discriminated,  and  that  their  diversity  of  technique  and 
quality  of  material  brought  about  a  different  effect :  of  the  soldiers  clad 
with  the  former  armor,  there  were  three  hundred,  of  whom  eighty  es- 
caped; of  soldiers  with  the  latter  armor,  there  was  a  force  of  three  thou- 
sand, of  whom  only  three  hundred  escaped.  We  do  not  exactly  know, 
however,  what  these  armors  really  were.  LEGGE  interprets  tsu  kia  as 
"buff-coats  lacquered  as  if  made  of  strings"  (then  again  translating 
"the  men  whose  buff -coats  looked  as  if  made  of  strings"),  and  p'i  lien 
as  "whose  coats  were  covered  with  silk."  Neither  is  intelligible.  S. 
CouvREUR3  has  proposed  to  explain  the  term  tsu  lien  as  "cuirasse  faite 
de  cordons  de  soie,  et  tunique  ouatee  faite  de  grosse  soie  cuite,"  4  and 
the  term  tsu  kia  as  "cuirasse  faite  de  cordon  de  soie  et  enduite  de 
vernis."  These  definitions  are  helpful,  yet  they  leave  us  in  the  dark  as 
to  the  contrast  between  the  armor  tsu  and  the  armor  lien.  The  latter, 
which  proved  so  disastrous  to  their  wearers,  may  have  been  made 
entirely  from  a  coarse  silken  material;  the  former,  however,  as  attested 
by  the  word  kia,  seem  to  have  consisted  essentially  of  hide,  with  the 
addition  of  silk  cords  (styled  tsu) ,  which  I  am  inclined  to  think  refer  to 
the  lashings  of  the  hide  armor. 

A  special  protective  contrivance  employed  by  the  archers  was  an 
arm-guard,  called  han  (No.  3799),  a  leather  cuff  wrapped  around  the 
left  arm,  the  bow  being  supported  against  it. 6  From  the  Han  period 
these  objects  were  made  of  iron. 

The  utilization  of  rhinoceros-hide  for  armor  persisted  down  to  the 
T'ang  period.  Li  Wang  of  the  Han  makes  mention  of  this  material 
(si  se)  for  that  purpose.  A  helmet  of  rhinoceros-hide  is  mentioned  under 
the  year  30  A.D.  in  the  Tung  kuan  Han  ki,  completed  about  170  A.D. 
In  the  biography  of  General  Ma  Lung,6  who  died  in  300  A.D.,7  we  hear 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  289,  397,  419,  517. 
8  Duke  Siang,  third  year  (LEGGE,  p.  419). 
1  Dictionnaire  chinois-frangais,  pp.  494,  982. 

4  In  Li  ki,  garments  of  coarse  boiled  silk  worn  after  the  first  year  of  mourning  are 
mentioned. 

6  COUVREUR,  Li  ki,  Vol.  I,  p.  621. 

•  Inserted  in  the  Annals  of  the  Tsin  Dynasty  (Tsin  shu,  Ch.  57,  p.  2  b). 

7  GILES,  Biographical  Dictionary,  p.  568. 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  ARCHAIC  PERIOD  183 

of  a  singular  stratagem,  in  which  iron  mail  (Tie  k'ai)  versus  rhinoceros- 
hide  cuirasses  (5*'  kid)  was  at  stake.  Ma  Lung  defeated  a  hostile 
army  by  covering  the  sides  of  a  narrow  pass  with  loadstone,1  so  that  the 
iron-clad  enemies  were  unable  to  move,  whereas  his  cuirassed  men  got 
the  better  of  them.  Whatever  the  basis  of  this  anecdote  may  be,  we 
recognize  that  hide  armor  still  held  its  ground  in  the  age  of  iron  armor, 
and  insured  mobility  of  troops  to  such  a  degree  that  hide-clad  soldiers 
could  carry  a  victory  over  a  heavy-mailed  force  struggling  along  under 
the  burden  of  metal.  In  some  other  passages  of  Tsin  shu  and  Sung  shu 
we  meet  the  term  si  p'i  k'ai  ("rhinoceros-hide  metal  armor"),  which 
must  have  been  a  suit  with  a  hide  foundation  reinforced  by  metal 
laminae.  We  shall  hear  more  of  cuirasses  in  later  periods,  and  likewise 
of  metal  armor. 

The  hide  armor  of  the  Chou  is  irretrievably  lost,  and  there  is  little  or 
no  chance  that  any  will  ever  come  to  light.  To  a  certain  degree,  hide 
armor,  as  still  manufactured  not  so  long  ago  by  native  tribes  of  America, 
may  serve  as  an  object-lesson  and  substitute,  and  assist  us  in  reconstruct- 
ing in  our  minds  the  appearance  of  the  ancient  Chinese  warriors.  As 
the  course  of  our  investigation  renders  it  necessary  to  touch  also  the 
subject  of  American  defensive  armor,  these  illustrations  of  American 
specimens  not  easily  accessible  will  be  welcome  to  many  students. 
Plate  XI  illustrates  an  armor,  in  the  form  of  a  vest,  made  from  extremely 
hard,  heavy,  tanned  moose-skin  of  two  thicknesses,  the  two  layers  being 
tightly  pressed  together.  It  is  proof,  against  musket-balls  fired  at  a 
reasonable  distance.  It  opens  in  front,  and  is  closed  by  means  of  three 
iron  buckles  of  foreign  make.  The  specimen  comes  from  the  Tlingit, 
Alaska. 2 

The  armor  figured  in  Plate  XII  is  the  work  of  Asiatic  Eskimo 
from  East  Cape  on  the  Chukotsk  Peninsula.  It  is  of  particular  interest 
in  this  connection  as  exhibiting  the  tendency  toward  making  a  cuirass 
of  a  single  large  piece  of  hide,  as  far  as  possible,  thus  avoiding  the  cutting 
of  it.  Extending  in  its  total  width  to  fully  1.55  m,  two  complete  skins 
of  seals  are  utilized  in  this  specimen,  the  one  forming  the  exterior,  the 
other  the  interior,  of  the  suit.  They  are  sewed  together  along  the  edges 

1  Regarding  the  loadstone  in  China  see  J.  KLAPROTH  (Lettre  sur  I'invention  de  la 
boussole,  pp.  66  et  seq.,  Paris,  1834),  and  F.  DE  MELY  (Les  lapidaires  chinois,  p.  106). 

1  Similar  coats  of  hardened  hide  were  turned  out  by  the  Haida,  Chinuk,  Hupa, 
Shoshoni,  Navajo,  Pawni,  Mohawk,  and  others.  There  are  in  the  Field  Museum  sev- 
eral other  Tlingit  cuirasses  painted  with  the  totemic  emblems  of  the  clans  to  which 
the  chiefs  wearing  them  belonged.  The  shields  of  the  Plains  Indians  were  made 
from  buffalo-hide,  with  one  or  two  covers  of  soft  dressed  buffalo,  elk,  or  deer  skin;  the 
hide  used  for  the  purpose  was  taken  from  the  neck  of  the  buffalo  bull,  and  was  made 
exceptionally  thick  and  tough  by  shrinking  it,  while  wet,  over  a  fire  built  in  a  hole 
in  the  ground  (J.  MOONEY,  in  Handbook  of  American  Indians,  Vol.  II,  p.  547). 


184  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

with  bands  of  seal-thongs,  and  enclose  between  them  wooden  slats. 
The  central  piece  protecting  the  chest  has  incased  in  it  a  board  of  the 
same  shape  and  size,  while  the  gradually  narrowing  flaps  have  each 
four  slats  inserted  to  secure  greater  elasticity  of  movement. 

On  Plate  XIII  is  illustrated  an  armor  of  hard  tanned  caribou-skin, 
of  especial  interest  to  students  of  China  because  it  is  covered  all  over 
with  Chinese  coins.  It  is  of  the  same  type  of  cuirass  as  the  one  in  Plate 
XI  and  comes  from  the  Tlingit,  Tarku  Tribe,  on  the  Tarku  River,  Alaska. 
It  was  obtained  by  Lieutenant  G.  T.  Emmons,  who  says  that  "the 
Chinese  money  was  procured  in  trade  from  the  early  Russians,  whose 
ships,  exchanging  the  furs  of  the  North  Pacific  with  the  Chinese  for  tea, 
plied  constantly  between  the  two  countries,  by  which  means  many 
Chinese  articles  found  their  way  to  this  coast."  The  coins  (about  a 
thousand  in  number)  are  arranged  in  regular  vertical  rows,  and  are 
fastened  to  the  surface  of  the  skin  coat  by  means  of  leather  strips, 
which  pass  through  their  square  perforations.  The  coins  are  all  care- 
fully selected,  and  only  well  preserved  specimens  have  been  used.  The 
obverse,  containing  the  Chinese  legend,  is  usually  on  the  outside;  only 
in  a  few  cases  does  the  reverse  with  the  Manchu  legend  stand  out. 
The  bulk  of  these  coins  date  from  the  beginning  of  the  Manchu  dynasty, 
and  are  those  inscribed  with  the  periods  Shun-chi  (1644-1661),  K'ang-hi 
(1662-1722),  and  Yung-che'ng  (1723-1735).  There  are  several  coins  of 
the  period  K'ien-lung  (1736-1795)  in  this  lot,  but  they  form  the  minority, 
while  the  K'ang-hi  coins  outnumber  all  others.  There  is  no  coin  later 
than  the  K'ien-lung  period,  so  that  it  may  well  be  supposed  that  this 
collection  of  coins  was  traded  off  in  Alaska  during  or  shortly  after 
that  period,  say  roughly  at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century.  We 
know,  of  course,  that  until  a  few  years  ago  coins  of  the  said  description 
were  still  circulating  in  many  parts  of  the  interior  of  China,  particularly 
in  the  country,  though  I  understand  that  they  have  now  been  with- 
drawn from  currency  owing  to  the  financial  and  monetary  reform;  it  is 
not  likely,  however,  that  such  a  large  number  of  those  older  coins  would 
have  arrived  in  Alaska  in  recent  times  without  any  additional  modern 
coins.  The  conspicuous  absence  of  any  coins  of  the  nineteenth  century 
in  a  lot  of  a  thousand  speaks  in  favor  of  the  assumption  that  they  had 
been  traded  at  the  termination  of  the  eighteenth  century.  A  closer 
attempt  at  dating  could  be  made,  if  it  were  possible  to  take  off  all  the 
K'ien-lung  coins,  in  order  to  read  their  reverses,  which  usually  impart  the 
place  of  the  mint,  and  in  some  cases  would  allow  of  the  establishment 
of  a  fixed  year  for  the  coinage.  The  last  year  thus  determined  would 
yield  the  terminus  a  quo;  that  is,  the  approximate  date,  after  which  this 
money  may  have  left  China  en  route  to  the  north-east.  It  is  not  feasible 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  ARCHAIC  PERIOD  185 

to  detach  the  coins  from  the  armor,  nor  to  lift  them  sufficiently  to  enable 
one  to  read  the  reverse,  as  they  are  fastened  very  tightly.  Certainly,  I 
do  not  mean  to  say  that  the  armor  itself  originated  at  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  though  of  course  this  might  be  possible;  while  it  is 
conceivable  also  that  the  coins,  on  arrival  in  Alaska,  were  kept  in  a  family ; 
or  bequeathed  to  some  member  of  it,  and  were  attached  to  the  cuirass 
at  a  much  later  date. x 

It  is  curious  that  in  the  Chou  li  no  mention  is  made  of  helmets.  A 
reference  to  them  was  presumably  contained  in  the  lost  chapter  Se  kia, 
"the  Superintendents  of  Armor,"  an  office  dealing  with  the  business  of 
defensive  and  offensive  armor.  In  the  Shi  king,  in  one  of  the  songs  of 
the  country  of  Lu,  helmets  adorned  with  shells  (pei  chou)  are  mentioned. 
The  shells,  as  is  explained  by  the  commentaries,  were  connected,  and 
attached  to  the  helmets  by  means  of  strings  of  vermilion  color.1  The 
helmets  were  nothing  but  round  leather  caps,  corresponding  to  the 
galea  of  the  Romans. 

Armor  and  helmet  were  designed  to  create  the  impression  of  strength 
and  bravery,  and  to  inspire  such  fear  that  the  enemy  did  not  dare  to 
attack  the  wearer. 3  They  were  considered  valuable  objects  and  were 
presented  as  gifts.4 

The  regular  force  which  a  great  state  could  at  the  utmost  bring  into 
the  field  consisted  of  a  thousand  chariots.6  Each  chariot  contained 

1  F.  RATZEL  (Ober  die  Stabchenpanzer,  Sitzungsberichte  der  bayerischen  Akademic, 
1886,  p.  191),  who  mentions  such  coin  armor  among  the  Tlingit,  derives  it  from  the 
idea  of  armor-scales,  and  remarks  that  motives  of  protection  and  decoration  here 
come  into  close  contact  with  each  other.  The  idea  of  a  scale  armor,  however,  is  ex- 
cluded in  such  specimens  as  the  one  figured  by  HOUGH  (Primitive  American  Armor, 
Plate  XXI,  Fig.  i)  where  the  coins  are  strung  loosely  and  at  some  distance  from  one 
another,  so  that  protection  from  them,  if  any  at  all,  could  only  amount  to  a  minimum. 
Further,  the  conspicuous  absence  of  scale  armor  on  the  entire  continent  of  America 
conflicts  with  the  view  that  the  comparatively  recent  coin  armor  might  be  the  imita- 
tion of  scale  armor.  The  coins  have  a  merely  ornamental  purpose,  and  possibly  also 
the  function  of  amulets  or  magic  protection;  as  such,  these  two  ideas  being  com- 
bined, we  find  Chinese  coins  sewed  on  to  every-day  garments  among  the  Gold  and 
the  Gilyak  on  the  Amur;  and  as  the  common  Chinese  people  are  themselves  in  the 
habit  of  wearing  old  coins  as  charms,  it  seems  very  plausible  that  the  example  of  the 
Chinese  may  have  served  as  an  incentive  to  the  Amur  tribes,  and  that  Russian  trad- 
ers, familiar  with  the  customs  of  Siberian  peoples,  may  have  suggested  the  same  prac- 
tice to  the  tribes  of  Alaska. 

J  LEGGE,  Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  IV,  p.  626. 

*  Li  ki,  ed.  COUVREUR,  Vol.  I,  p.  52;  Vol.  II,  p.  492. 

4  Ibid.,  Vol.  I,  p.  41;  Vol.  II,  pp.  17,  18. 

1  The  war-chariot  is  generally  believed  to  have  arisen  in  Babylonia,  and  to  have 
spread  from  this  centre  to  Egypt,  Greece,  Iran,  and  India.  But  the  great  antiquity 
which  the  war-chariot  may  claim  in  China  prevents  us  from  accepting  the  conclusion 
that  it  was  plainly  derived  there  from  Babylonia  in  historical  times.  Like  many  other 
basic  factors  of  ancient  Chinese  culture,  it  ranges  in  the  class  of  those  acquisitions 
which  ancient  China  has  in  common  with  western  Asia,  and  which  go  back  to  a  re- 
mote prehistoric  age.  To  these  belong  the  mode  of  agriculture,  the  cultivation  of 


1 86  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

three  armored  men, —  the  charioteer  in  the  middle,  with  a  spearman  on 
his  right,  and  an  archer  on  his  left.  There  were  attached  to  it  seventy- 
two  foot-soldiers  and  twenty-five  other  followers,  one  hundred  men  in  all ; 
so  that  the  whole  force  would  amount  to  a  hundred  thousand  men. 
But  in  actual  service,  the  force  of  a  great  state  was  restricted  to  three 
armies,  or  three  hundred  and  seventy-five  chariots,  attended,  inclusive 
of  their  armored  occupants,  by  thirty-seven  thousand  five  hundred  men, 
of  whom  twenty-seven  thousand  five  hundred  were  foot-soldiers. *  It 
seems  that  body  armor  was  restricted  to  those  fighting  from  the  chariots. 
Another  safeguard  of  the  warriors  was  formed  by  shields  decorated 
with  figures  of  dragons,  or  perhaps  adorned  with  feathers.2  The  latter 
affair  presents  a  point  of  controversy  among  the  commentators:  the 
one  understanding  that  the  feathers  were  fixed  to  the  shield;  the  others, 
that  they  were  painted  on  it.  LEGGE  adopts  the  latter  view,  and  trans- 
lates, "the  beautiful  feather-figured  shield."  Also  COUVREUR  is 
inclined  to  think  that  feathers  of  different  kinds  were  represented  on 
the  shield.  This  opinion,  however,  is  not  very  convincing.  Whereas 
it  is  perfectly  plausible  that  designs  of  dragons,  or,  as  in  recent  times,  of 
tigers  were  painted  on  the  shields,  and  doubtless  intended  to  guard  the 
wearer  and  to  terrify  the  enemy,  it  is  difficult  to  see  what  reasons  could 
induce  man  to  decorate  his  shield  with  a  pictorial  pattern  of  feathers. 
We  are  all  familiar  with  the  shields  of  primitive  man  adorned  with  real 
feathers,  particularly  among  the  American  Indians;  and  the  primitive 
man  of  the  Shi  king  period,  in  all  likelihood,  may  have  done  the  same. a 
A  document  of  the  Han  period  brought  to  light  by  M.  CHAVANNES 
(see  p.  189),  in  which  pigeon  tail-feathers  are  mentioned  in  connection 
with  a  buckler,  is  very  apt  to  corroborate  this  conclusion. 

The  shield  was  combined  with  the  spear,4  while  later  in  the  Han  pe- 

wheat  and  barley,  tilling  of  the  field  by  means  of  the  plough  drawn  by  an  ox,  methods 
of  artificial  irrigation,  cattle-breeding,  employment  of  cattle  as  draught-animals, 
the  composite  bow,  the  cart  based  on  the  principle  of  the  wheel,  and  the  potter's 
wheel. 

1  LEGGE,  Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  IV,  p.  626;  COUVREUR,  Cheu  King,  p.  137.  ^  I 
have  abandoned  Legge's  inexact  word  "mailed"  and  substituted  "armored"  for  it; 
anything  like  "mail"  was  unknown  in  China  during  the  archaic  period  (compare 
Chapter  IV). 

2  LEGGE,  /.  c.,  p.  194;  COUVREUR,  /.  c.,  pp.  135,  136. 

*  The  Tibetans  had  bucklers  ornamented  with  feathers  (see  p.  256) .  An  unsophisti- 
cated mind  may  certainly  be  entitled  to  raise  the  question  how  the  Chinese  com- 
mentators get  at  the  "feathers"  in  the  passage  of  the  Shi  king,  as  no  direct  word  to 
this  effect  is  employed.  The  word  mdng  (No.  7763),  into  which  this  meaning  is  read, 
means  "to  cover,  to  envelop;"  and  the  term  mtng  fa,  after  all,  may  simply  mean 
"wooden  shields  covered  with  hide."  In  this  sense,  the  term  m%ng  tun  ("hide-covered 
buckler")  is  indeed  utilized  in  later  literature. 

4  For  instance,  BIOT,  Chou  li,  Vol  II,  p.  223.  In  the  inscriptions  on  ancient 
bronzes,  as  reproduced  and  explained  in  the  Po  ku  t'u  lu,  the  word  sun  ("grand- 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  ARCHAIC  PERIOD  187 

riod  it  was  handled  together  with  the  sword.  The  term  kan  ko  ("shield 
and  spear")  in  the  Shi  king1  is  a  collective  notion  comprising  defensive 
and  offensive  armor,  or  war-implements.  In  the  administration  of  the 
Chou  dynasty,  there  was  a  special  official  presiding  over  the  various 
kinds  of  spears  and  bucklers,  and  commissioned  with  their  distribution.2 
But  no  contemporaneous  description  of  shields  is  handed  down,  from 
which  an  exact  conception  as  to  their  material  and  form  might  be 
gained. 

The  shields  protecting  the  soldiers  in  the  war-chariots  were  presum- 
ably roof-shaped,  as  we  glean  from  a  text  in  Tso  chuan 3  when,  in  the 
battle  of  Ch'ui-pi,  fought  between  the  armies  of  the  principalities  of 
Lu  and  Ts'i,  Tse-yuan  Tsi  of  Ts'i  pursued  Sh&ig-tse,  and  shot  an  arrow 
at  him,  hitting  the  ridge  of  his  shield.  In  this  passage  the  ridge  is 
designated  "roofing-tile"  (wd),  explained  by  the  commentary  as  the 
ridge  of  the  shield.  This  is  also  the  earliest  document  in  which  the  word 
shun  (No.  10,154)  appears  as  a  designation  for  the  shield,  and,  owing  to 
its  composition  with  the  classifier  'wood,'  leaves  no  doubt  that  the 
shields  were  wooden.4  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  during  the  early 
period,  in  the  same  manner  as  in  armor,  no  metal  was  employed  for  the 
bucklers;  and  it  is  remarkable  also  that  in  all  later  periods  of  culture 
when  the  working  of  metals  was  in  full  swing,  none  were  ever  turned  to 
that  purpose;  wood,  rattan,  and  hide  holding  their  place.  The  buckler, 
accordingly,  never  assumed  a  vast  importance  in  Chinese  warfare.8 

A  fundamental  text  relating  to  ancient  shields,  though  dating  from 
the  time  of  the  Later  Han  dynasty,  is  contained  in  the  dictionary  Shi 
ming  by  Liu  Hi.  He  defines  the  word  tun  ("shield")  as  tung  ("to 


son")  is  represented  in  writing  by  the  rough  figure  of  a  youth  holding  spear  and 
shield,  and  performing  a  war-dance. 

1  LEGGE,  Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  484,  578.  Likewise  in  Li  ki  (ed.  Cou- 
VREUR,  Vol.  I,  pp.  233,  468). 

1  BIOT,  Chou  li,  Vol.  II,  p.  238;  J.  H.  PLATH,  Das  Kriegswesen  der  alten  Chinesen 
(Sitzungsberichte  der  bayerischen  Akademie,  1873,  p.  33). 

*  Duke  Chao,  26th  year,  B.C.  516  (compare  LEGGE,  Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  V, 
P-  7i6). 

*  Shi  king,  Chou  li,  and  Shi  ki  use  the  word  tun  (No.  12,223),  which  is  doubtless 
derived  from  the  verb  tun  (No.  12,225),  <<to  hide  away,  to  conceal  one's  self."    The 
word  kan  (No.  5814)  appears  twice  in  Shu  king.    The  commentaries  do  not  interpret 
the  differences  between  the  three  words,  but  explain  one  by  another.     The  shield,  as 
elsewhere,  was  occasionally  applied  also  as  an  offensive  weapon.    Thus,  Fan  K'uai, 
girt  with  a  sword  and  bearing  the  buckler  on  his  arm,  penetrated  into  the  camp  of 
Hiang  Yu,  and  used  the  buckler  in  pushing  the  guards  down,  who  thus  fell  to  the 
ground  (CHAVANNES,  Les  Me'moires  histonques  de  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  Vol.  II,  p.  279). 

6  Copper  shields  are  mentioned  by  the  Chinese,  but  refer  to  foreign  tribes;  for 
instance,  in  the  Annals  of  the  Yuan  Dynasty  under  the  year  1286,  when  they  were 
sent  from  a  foreign  country  called  Ma-pa;  they  are  ascribed  also  to  the  Shan  of  Yun- 
nan (see  p.  193). 


1 88  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

conceal  one's  self,"  No.  12,241),  and  as  the  object  behind  which  a  man 
hides  himself  in  a  kneeling  position  in  order  to  evade  an  attack.  Liu 
Hi  enumerates  two  kinds  of  foreign  shields  adopted  by  the  ancient 
Chinese,  —  a  large  and  flat  one,  which  originally  was  indigenous  to  the 
country  of  Wu l  and  peculiar  to  the  generals  there,  hence  styled  Wu 
k'uei  (No.  6499),  "general  of  Wu;"  and  a  high  one,  termed  sii  tun,z 
coming  from  the  country  of  Shu  (Sze-ch'uan),  but  termed  by  others 
"shield  of  the  K'iang  (Tibetans)"  because  they  asserted  that  it  origi- 
nated from  the  K'iang.  Here  we  notice  the  ever-recurring  Chinese 
tendency  toward  imitating  and  appropriating  the  armaments  of  the 
neighboring  tribes.  Liu  Hi  mentions  also  the  long  and  narrow  shields 
used  by  the  infantry  soldiers  in  combination  with  the  sword, —  styled 
"foot  shields"  (pu  [No.  9485]  tun)?  and  the  short  and  narrow  shields 
employed  on  the  war-chariots, —  styled  "small  shields"  (kie  [No. 
1505]*  tun).  As  to  the  materials  chosen  for  their  manufacture,  he 
emphasizes  boards  and,  what  is  of  especial  interest,  rhinoceros-hide 
(si  p'i).  The  latter  were  termed  "rhinoceros  shields"  (si  tun);  the 
former,  "wooden  shields"  (mu  tun).  The  specimen  of  a  circular  buck- 
ler of  rhinoceros-hide,  of  Indian  manufacture  (secured  by  the  writer  in 
Tibet),  is  illustrated  in  Plate  XXVII. 

Culture-objects  when  once  acquired  survive  through  the  ages  with 
persistent  force,  even  after  the  introduction  of  innovations  which  seem  to 
be  apt  to  supersede  entirely  the  old  material.  We  have  already  referred 
to  the  fact  that  cuirasses  have  not  yet  wholly  disappeared  in  modern 
China.  Indeed,  we  meet  them  in  all  periods  of  Chinese  history,  despite 
new  inventions  of  superior  quality. 

From  the  wooden  documents  found  in  Turkistan,  and  recently 
deciphered  with  admirable  ingenuity  by  E.  CHAVANNESS  it  becomes 
apparent  that  hide  corselets  formed  the  defensive  armor  of  the  Chinese 
soldiers  serving  in  eastern  Turkistan  during  the  Han  period.  The 
contemporaneous  texts  written  out  on  wooden  slips  employ  either  the 

1  No.  12,748.  Wu  is  an  ancient  kingdom  comprising  the  present  province  of 
Kiang-su,  the  southern  part  of  An-hui,  and  the  northern  portions  of  Chi-kiang  and 
Kiang-si  (see  Chinese  Pottery  in  the  Philippines,  p.  42,  note  10). 

*  Su  (No.  4716)  is  explained  as  a  war-implement  in  K'ang-hi's  Dictionary,  which 
quotes  the  passage  in  question.    This  interpretation  is  not  quite  satisfactory;  for 
the  word  su  must  have  a  more  specific  meaning,  as  shown  by  the  parallelism  of  the 

E  receding  sentence  and  the  following  clause,  in  which  it  is  said  that  these  shields  were 
andled  by  the  Su  of  the  country  of  Shu.    The  word,  accordingly,  parallel  to  the 
preceding  generals  of  Wu,  must  refer  to  a  military  charge  or  rank  in  Shu;  and  it  is 
doubtless  derived  from  a  language  spoken  in  Shu,  or  from  a  language  of  the  K'iang. 
1  These  were  actually  used  in  the  Han  period,  as  will  be  noticed  in  Chapter  III. 

*  The  word  is  explained  by  him  in  the  sense  of  "small." 

B  Les  documents  chinois  d^couverts  par  Aurel  Stein  dans  les  sables  du  Turkestan 
oriental,  p.  xvi  (Oxford,  1913). 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  ARCHAIC  PERIOD  189 

plain  word  kia  (No.  187),  or  the  compound  ko  kia  (Nos.  393,  569), 
"hide  armor;"  and  we  hear  also  of  an  official  having  charge  of  armor 
(No.  758).1  Simultaneously,  another  word  for  body  armor,  k'ai,  is 
twice  used  in  these  documents  (Nos.  758,  794),  and  translated  by 
M .  CHAVANNES  likewise  "  cuirasse. ' '  This  seems  to  be  correct  only  in  so 
far  as  leather  was  applied  also  to  this  kind  of  armor,  as  expressly  attested 
by  document  No.  794;  but  it  will  be  seen  in  the  following  chapter  that 
the  new  word  k*ai,  which  springs  up  in  the  Han  period,  denotes  a  new 
type  of  armor  presenting  a  combination  of  hide  with  metal,  and  that  the 
rendering  by  "cuirass"  is  therefore  inadequate.  The  defensive  armor  of 
the  Han  soldiers  was  completed  by  a  helmet  (No.  794)  and  a  buckler 
(tun),  the  latter  being  described  as  red  in  the  wooden  documents  (Nos. 
75,  77),  from  which  it  may  be  inferred  that  they  were  made  of  wood 
covered  with  a  red  varnish 2  protecting  the  wood  from  moisture,  red 
being  believed  to  terrify  the  enemy;  it  was  the  main  function  of  the 
buckler  to  ward  off  the  shots  of  arrows  (No.  682).  In  one  case  a 
buckler  is  especially  mentioned  as  having  been  made  in  B.C.  63  by  the 
official  Armory  of  Nan-yang  in  Ho-nan  Province  (No.  39);  in  another 
case  a  buckler  is  on  record  as  having  been  worked  in  B.C.  61  by  the  ar- 
tisans of  the  administration  (No.  40).  Bucklers  were  decorated  with 
pigeon  tail-feathers  attached  to  them  (No.  75). 3 

Despite  the  fact  that  metal  armor,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  next  chapter, 
gradually  made  its  way  during  the  period  of  the  two  Han  dynasties, 
and  was  firmly  established  in  the  age  of  the  T'ang,  mention  is  still  made 
in  the  Statutes  of  the  T'ang  Dynasty  *  of  hide  cuirasses  (p*i  kia) ;  rhino- 

1  In  Ch.  49  of  Hou  Han  shu  the  story  is  told  of  how  in  75  A.D.  General  Keng 
Kung  and  his  troops,  being  at  war  with  Kucha,  were  at  the  point  of  starvation,  and 
cooked  cuirasses  and  crossbows  so  as  to  feed  on  the  leather  and  sinews  contained 
in  them  (CHAVANNES,  T'oung  Poo,  1907,  p.  228),  —  a  case  sufficiently  convincing 
as  to  the  material  of  which  they  were  made. 

*  In  the  same  manner  as  the  cuirasses  (p.  182). 

1  M.  CHAVANNES  (/.  c.,  p.  30)  thinks  that  the  expression  "  pigeon- tail "  must  be 
a  technical  term  which  designates  perhaps  the  leather  or  hemp  handle  of  the  buckler. 
There  is  in  my  opinion  no  necessity  for  such  a  conjecture.  "  Pigeon-tail,"  I  venture  to 
suggest,  is  to  be  understood  literally,  inasmuch  as  the  buckler,  as  perhaps  in  the  period 
of  the  Shi  king,  was  adorned  along  its  edges  with  feathers;  in  the  document  in  question 
the  report  is  made  that  the  soldier  so  and  so  has  received  "a  red  buckler,  the  pigeon 
tail-feathers  of  which  had  rotted  away."  The  " rotting-away "  sounds  plausible 
with  regard  to  the  latter,  but  much  less  so  if  a  leather  or  hemp  strap  were  intended. 
As  to  offensive  armor,  M.  CHAVANNES  correctly  emphasizes  the  fact  that  the  Chinese 
soldiers  of  the  Han  time  availed  themselves  of  crossbows,  not  of  bows;  this  is  con- 
firmed by  his  documents  as  well  as  by  the  Han  sculptures,  on  which  men  are  usually 
represented  as  shooting  with  crossbows,  not,  as  has  been  said  by  some  observers, 
with  bows.  As  to  swords,  it  seems  preferable  to  study  them  from  actual  specimens 
of  cast  bronze  and  iron,  such  as  are  in  our  collections,  instead  of  from  the  bas-reliefs, 
as  M.  CHAVANNES  recommends  us  to  do  (compare  Plates  XX  and  XXI). 

4  P'ei  wen  yun  fu  (Ch.  106,  p.  73),  and  Ko  chi  king  yuan  (Ch.  41,  p.  3).  The 
T'ang  leu  lien  ("Six  Statutes  of  the  T'ang  Dynasty")  gives  a  description  of  the 


190  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

ceros-hide  (si  si)  being  employed  for  them,  and  sometimes  being  sup- 
planted by  buffalo-hide. 

In  the  History  of  the  Liao  Dynasty l  rhinoceros-hide  armor  is  still 
recorded  for  the  year  952  as  a  tribute  of  the  Nan  T'ang  dynasty  to  the 
Court  of  the  Liao.  The  captains  in  the  army  of  the  kingdom  of  Nan- 
chao  are  reported  to  have  used  cuirasses  made  from  rhinoceros-hide. 2 
During  the  middle  ages,  when  the  rhinoceros  grew  scarcer,  other  hides 
began  to  take  its  place.  It  has  been  demonstrated  above  (p.  162)  that 
under  the  T'ang  the  district  of  Kuang-ling  sent  to  the  Court  tribute  of 
buffalo-hide  armor. 3  MARCO  POLO  4  says  regarding  the  Mongols  that 
on  their  backs  they  wear  armor  of  cuirbouly  (boiled  leather),  prepared 
from  buffalo  and  other  hides,  which  is  very  strong;  and  all  contemporary 
western  writers  speak  of  the  leather  armor  used  by  the  Mongols.5 
This  fact  is  confirmed  by  the  Annals  of  the  Yuan  Dynasty. 6 

The  type  of  cuirass  styled  "hoop  armor"  has  possibly  at  one  time 
existed  in  China,  though  there  is  no  description  of  it.  At  the  Court 
of  the  emperors  of  the  Kin  dynasty  (1115-1234)  in  Peking,  the  guards 
were  all  clad  with  armor.  On  the  left  were  stationed  those  with  a 
banded  cuirass  colored  blue  (ts'ing  t'ao  kid),  holding  in  their  hands  a 
flag  on  which  was  represented  a  yellow  dragon.  On  the  right  were 
stationed  those  with  a  banded  cuirass  colored  red  (hung  t'ao  kia) ,  holding 
a  flag  with  a  red  dragon  represented  on  it. 7  The  word  kia  used  in  this 
connection  indicates  that  it  is  the  question  of  hide  cuirass;  and  the  word 
t'ao  ("band")  defines  the  peculiar  character  of  this  armor  in  that  it  was 
banded  or  hooped,  the  bands  being  cut  out  of  leather,  perhaps  in  a 


administrative  organization  of  the  period  K'ai-yuan  (713-741)  of  the  T'ang  dynasty, 
the  authorship  being  ascribed  to  the  Emperor  Yuan-tsung  (713-755),  and  Li  Lin-fu 
and  others  contributing  to  the  interpretation  of  the  work  (WvLiE,  Notes  on  Chinese 
Literature,  p.  67;  PELLIOT,  Bulletin  de  I'Ecole  frangaise  d' Extreme-Orient,  Vol.  Ill, 
1903,  p.  668). 

1  Liao  shi,  Ch.  6,  p.  I. 

2  C.  SAINSON,  Histoire  particuliere  du  Nan-Tchao,  p.  19  (Paris,  1904). 

*  In  Yen  kien  lei  han  (Ch.  228,  p.  14)  a  book  Ts'e  lin  hai  ts'o  is  quoted  to  the 
effect  that  what  is  designated  "rhinoceros-hide  armor"  in  the  T'ang  History  is  at  present 
made  from  buffalo-hide,  but  is  generally  styled  si  ("rhinoceros"). 

4  Ed.  of  YULE  and  CORDIER,  Vol.  I,  p.  260. 

8  W.  W.  ROCKHILL,  The  Journey  of  William  of  Rubruck,  p.  261  (London,  Hak- 
luyt  Society,  1900),  and  p.  180. 

•  For  instance,  Yuan  shi,  Ch.  78,  p.  12  (K'ien-lung  edition). 

1  This  Information  is  contained  in  the  Pei  yuan  lu,  the  narrative  of  a  journey  in 
1177  A.D.  from  Hang  chou  to  Peking,  described  by  CHOU  SHAN  and  translated  by 
CHAVANNES  (T'oung  Pao,  1904,  pp.  163-192;  the  passage  indicated  is  on  p.  189).  It 
is  quoted,  though  incompletely,  in  P'ei  w&n  yunfu  (Ch.  106,  p.  74).  CHAVANNES' 
translation  "cuirasses  avec  des  cordons  bleus"  certainly  is  all  right,  as  far  as  the 
translation  is  concerned;  but  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  this  term  is  capable  of  the 
interpretation  as  given  above.  The  word  t'ao  ("band")  is  in  GILES,  No.  10,817. 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  ARCHAIC  PERIOD  191 

manner  similar  to  that  of  the  corresponding  Chukchi  armor  figured  and 
described  by  WALTER  HOUGH  l  and  W.  BOGORAS.  2 

Another  singular  kind  of  armor  is  alluded  to  in  the  Lan  p'ei  lu  3  under 
the  name  jung  kia.  The  word  jung  (No.  5736)  refers  to  the  soft  core 
of  the  young  antlers  of  the  deer  (considered  by  the  Chinese  an  efficient 
aphrodisiac);  and  I  am  inclined  to  interpret  the  term  jung  kia  as  a 
cuirass  strengthened  by  horn  shavings  fastened  to  the  surface,  for  which 
there  are  interesting  analogies  in  other  culture  areas.  4  In  the  passage 


1  Primitive  American  Armor  (Report  of  the  U.  S.  National  Museum  for 
Plate  IV  and  p.  634).   An  excellent  specimen  of  this  type  is  in  the  Field  Museum  (Cat. 
No.  34.151). 

2  Publications  du  Musee  d'  Ethnographic  et  d'A  nthropologie  de  St.  Peter  sbourg,  II, 
Plate  XII,  Fig.  I  (St.  Petersburg,  1901).    The  Chukchi  hoop  armor,  however,  is  not 
related  to  the  so-called  banded  mail  of  the  European  middle  ages,  as  asserted  by 
HOUGH  (/.  c.,  p.  633)  and  repeated  by  BOGORAS  (The  Chukchee,  Jesup  North  Pacific 
Expedition,  Vol.  VII,  p.  162).    In  the  European  types  it  has  been  shown  that  the 
banded  appearance,  as  it  occurs  in  mediaeval  illustrations,  was  produced  by  thongs  of 
leather  which  were  strung  through  adjacent  rows  of  chain-links  (BASHFORD  DEAN, 
Catalogue  of  European  Arms  and  Armor,  p.  22,  New  York,  1905),  —  a  feature  entirely 
lacking  in  the  Chukchi  armor. 

3  Quoted  in  P'ei  wtn  yiin  /«,  Ch.  106,  p.  74.     This  is  a  brief  work  containing 
likewise  the  narrative  of  a  mission  to  the  Court  of  the  Kin  emperors  in  1  170  by  Fan 
Ch'eng-ta  (i  126-1  193),  and  reprinted  in  Chi  pu  tsu  chai  ts'ung  shu.    In  the  text  of  this 
work  it  is  added  that  the  guards  had  spears  with  handles  inlaid  with  gold  leaf,  and 
flags  painted  with  blue  dragons;  those  in  the  east  had  yellow  flags,  and  those  in  the 
west  white  ones. 

4  AMMIANUS  MARCELLINUS  (xvu,  12)  narrates  that  the  armor  of  the  Quadians 
and  Sarmatians  consisted  of  small  scales  of  polished  horn  arranged  on  a  linen  coat 
like  the  plumage  of  a  bird  (loricae  ex  cornibus  rasis  et  levigatis,  plumarum  specie 
linteis  indumentis  innexae);  and  PAUSANIAS  (i,  21,  5)  relates  that  a  Sarmatian  scale 
armor  made  of  horses'  hoofs  was  preserved  as  a  curiosity  in  the  Temple  of  Aesculapius 
at  Athens.    RATZEL  (IJber  die  Stabchenpanzer  und  ihre  Verbreitung  im  nordpazifi- 
schen  Gebiet,  Sitzungsberichte  der  Bayerischen  Akademie  der  Wissenschaften,  1886, 
p.  191)  mentions,  after  a  letter  received  from  William  H.  Dall,  an  armor  made  by  the 
Tlingit  from  slices  of  deer-hoof  fastened  to  a  foundation  of  elk-skin  in  the  manner 
of  scale  armor.     In  the  Philippine  collection  of  the  Field  Museum  (Cat.  No.  34,493, 
gift  of  Mr.  E.  E.  Ayer),  there  is  a  suit  of  armor  composed  of  rectangular  laminae  of 
buffalo  (carabao)  horn,  mutually  connected  by  means  of  rows  of  brass  rings.    This 
armor  was  made  by  the  Moro  on  Basilan  Island.  It  is  identical  with  the  specimen  figured 
by  L.  SCHERMAN  (Berichte  des  K.  Ethnographischen  Museums  in  Munchen  IV,  191  1, 
Munchner  Jahrbuch  der  bildenden  Kunst,  1912,  p.  96,  Fig.  18),  which  is  stated  to  hail 
from  the  Sulu  Archipelago,  and  to  be  characteristic  of  this  region.     In  the  Field 
Museum,  however,  there  is  also  a  suit  of  armor  of  exactly  the  same  type,  in  which 
the  laminae  are  entirely  wrought  from  brass,  and  likewise  joined  by  means  of  brass 
rings.    This  metal  suit,  according  to  the  traditions  of  the  natives,  was  captured  in 
1631  when  a  Spanish  expedition  was  massacred  at  Lake  Lanao;  they  assure  us  also 
that  the  suits  of  carabao  horn  were  turned  out  in  imitation  of  this  Spanish  model. 
It  is  therefore  obvious  that  the  metal  harness  in  question,  as  moreover  attested  by 
the  evidence  of  the  object  itself,  is  of  Spanish  make,  and  served  as  model  for  the 
Philippine  as  well  as  the  Sulu  horn  armors.    Suits  of  armor  have  always  been  highly 
prized  articles  and  carried  away  to  remote  corners  by  barter  or  capture  in  war;  and 
it  is  always  necessary  to  be  on  one's  guard  in  making  correct  attributions.    We  may 
even  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  the  natives  of  the  Philippines 
to  construct  such  a  'complicated  affair  from  their  own  inventiveness.    Their  purely 
native  armor  is  unpretentious,  being  made  from  woven  hemp  stuffed  with  matted 
hemp  fibre.    This  is  the  national  North-  Malayan  type  of  body  armor,  the  same  as 


192  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

referred  to  it  is  said  that  in  the  east  and  west  galleries  of  the  imperial 
palace  the  guards  were  clothed  with  armor,  and  that  those  posted  east  wore 
armor  of  horn  dyed  red  (hung  jung  kid) ,  those  posted  west  wore  armor 
of  horn  dyed  green  and  blue  (pi  [No.  9009]  jung  kia) .  It  thus  seems  that 
the  Kin  or  Niuchi  had  a  predilection  for  curious  armor. 

Reference  to  the  cuirass  of  the  Mongols  has  already  been  made 
above  (pp.  180,  190). 

"They  ride  long  like  Frenchmen,  and  wear  armor  of  boiled  leather, 
and  shields  and  arblasts,  and  all  their  quarrels  are  poisoned," — thus 
MARCO  POLO  l  describes  the  equipment  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  kingdom 
of  Nan-chao  in  Yun-nan  called  by  him  Carajan.  Yule  is  inclined  to 
prefer  the  reading  "cuir  de  bufal"  offered  by  another  text,  as  some  of 
the  Miao-tse  of  Kuei-chou  are  described  as  wearing  armor  of  buffalo- 
leather  *  overlaid  with  iron  plates. 

Hide  was  indeed  the  chief  material  utilized  for  body  armor  by  the 
aboriginal  tribes  inhabiting  southern  China.  In  this  respect  we  are 
well  informed  by  several  reliable  and  observant  authors  of  the  Sung 
period.  The  famous  Fan  Ch'e'ng-ta  (i  126-1 193), 3  official,  poet,  florist, 
traveller,  and  ethnographer,  has  the  following  description  in  his  valuable 
account  of  the  regions  of  southern  China,4  "As  regards  the  armor  of 
the  Man  tribes,  harness  and  helmets  are  wrought  to  a  large  extent  only 
in  the  kingdom  of  Ta-li. 6  Elephant-skin  is  used  for  this  purpose  in  such 


we  find  on  Formosa.  The  aborigines  of  Formosa,  at  the  time  when  the  Chinese  made 
their  first  acquaintance  in  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century,  were  in  a  transitional 
stage  of  life,  iron  being  only  sparsely  used,  while  bone  and  horn  took  its  place;  and 
a  hoe  with  stone  blade  was  employed  in  tilling  the  fields.  The  interesting  account 
given  in  the  Annals  of  the  Sui  Dynasty  (Sui  shu,  Ch.  81,  p.  5)  ascribes  to  them 
knives,  spears,  bows  and  arrows,  swords  and  daggers;  and  adds  that  owing  to  the 
scarcity  of  iron  in  the  country  the  blades  are  thin  and  small,  being  replaced  to  a  great 
extent  by  bone  and  horn,  and  that  "of  plaited  hemp  they  make  armor,  or  avail 
themselves  of  bear  and  leopard  skins." 

1  Ed.  of  YULE  and  CORDIER,  Vol.  II,  p.  78. 

2  According  to  the  Nan-chao  ye  ski,  as  previously  shown,  it  was  rhinoceros-hide; 
while  the  text  of  Fan  Ch'e'ng-ta  which  follows  above  speaks  of  elephant-skin.    In  all 
likelihood  these  three  materials,  buffalo,  rhinoceros,  and  elephant,  were  used  side  by 
side. 

8  GILES,  Biographical  Dictionary,  p.  242. 

4  The  general  title  of  the  work  is  Kui  hai  yu  htng  chi  (WvLiE,  Notes  on  Chinese 
Literature,  p.  56;  BRETSCHNEIDER,  Botanicon  Sinicum,  pt.  i,  p.  165).  The  single 
chapters  have  separate  headings;  the  one  from  which  the  above  extract  is  given  is 
entitled  Kui  hai  k*i  chi  ("Records  of  Implements  in  Southern  China").  My  quota- 
tion refers  to  the  reprint  of  the  text  in  T'ang  Sung  ts'ung  shu. 

*  Name  of  the  country  and  the  capital  of  the  Shan  in  the  present  province  of 
Yun-nan,  who  ruled  as  the  Nan-chao  dynasty,  and  whose  kingdom  was  destroyed 
by  the  Mongols  in  1252.  It  still  was  independent  at  the  time  to  which  our  above 
account  refers.  The  fact  that  the  armor  of  the  Man  is  traced  to  the  kingdom  of  Ta-li, 
then  inhabited  by  the  T'ai  or  Shan,  is  of  some  significance.  The  T'ai  were  a  warlike 
and  chivalrous  nation  like  the  Tibetans,  and  had  developed  a  highly  advanced  culture 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  ARCHAIC  PERIOD  193 

a  manner  that  one  large  piece  covers  the  breast  and  another  the  back, 
looking  like  the  carapace  of  a  turtle,  and  being  as  solid  and  massive  as 
iron. l  Then  small  strips  of  leather  are  so  combined  as  to  form  brassards 
and  nape-guards,  made  like  the  iron  armor-plates  of  the  Chinese,2  and 
all  colored  vermilion.  Helmet  and  harness,  both  on  the  interior  and 
exterior  side,  are  all  colored  vermilion.  By  means  of  yellow  and  black 
mineral  dye-stuffs  they  paint  designs  of  flowers,  small  and  large  animals, 
such  as  are  now  found  on  girdle-buckles,3  —  of  admirable  workmanship. 
They  string  also  small  white  shells 4  in  connected  rows,  sew  them  on  to 
the  harness,  and  decorate  the  helmets  with  them.  Presumably  they 
are  survivals  of  those  ancient  helmets  adorned  with  shells  on  vermilion 
strings  mentioned  in  the  Shi  king."  6 

betraying,  in  opposition  to  the  Chinese,  a  keynote  of  striking  individualism.  Every 
adult  was  a  soldier;  and  it  is  a  surprising  fact  that  there  was  compulsory  military 
service  in  the  kingdom  of  Nan-chao,  and  that  the  army  was  highly  organized.  The 
History  of  Nan-chao  compiled  in  1550  by  YANG  SHEN  (1488-1559)  narrates  that  the 
army  captains  used  to  wear  cuisses,  red  helmets,  and  cuirasses  of  rhinoceros-hide, 
and  earned  bucklers  of  copper;  but  they  marched  bare-footed  (C.  SAINSON,  Histoire 
particuliere  du  Nan-Tchao,  p.  19,  Paris,  1904).  As  to  its  historical  relations,  the  pro- 
tective armor  of  the  Man  must  therefore  be  connected  with  that  of  the  Shan;  and  the 
Man  apparently  derived  it  from  the  superior  culture  of  their  neighbors. 

1  Virudhaka,  one  of  the  four  guardians  of  the  world  (lokapala)  in  Hindu  mythol- 
ogy, wears  a  helmet  from  the  skin  of  an  elephant's  head  (GR^NWEDEL,  Buddhist  Art 
in  India,  p.  138,  and  Mythologie  des  Buddhismus,  p.  181).  An  armor  of  elephant- 
skin  overlaid  with  gold  in  the  possession  of  a  Mongol  prince  in  1573  is  mentioned  by 
Sanang  Setsen  (I.  J.  SCHMIDT,  Geschichte  der  Ost-Mongolen,  p.  217).  The  Jesuit 
Francisco  Combes,  in  his  Historia  de  Mindanao  of  1667  (BLAIR  and  ROBERTSON,  The 
Philippine  Islands,  Vol.  XL,  p.  179),  reports  that  the  Joloans  on  Mindanao  in  the 
Philippines  are  armed  from  top  to  toe  with  helmet,  bracelets,  coat-of-mail,  greaves, 
with  linings  of  elephant-hide  armor  so  proof  that  nothing  can  make  a  dint  on  it  except 
fire-arms,  for  the  best  sword  or  cutlass  is  turned.  As  the  elephant  does  not  occur  in 
the  Philippines  (its  presence  on  Borneo  is  presumably  due  to  human  agency),  these 
armors,  in  all  likelihood,  must  have  been  importations  from  the  Asiatic  mainland. 

*  See  Chapter  V. 

1  The  word  employed  here  is  si-pi  (No.  9050),  which  in  this  mode  of  writing,  for 
the  first  time,  appears  in  Se-ma  Ts'ien's  Shi  ki  (Ch.  110,  p.  6  b)  in  the  sense  of  a 
buckle  to  fasten  a  girdle.  E.  H.  PARKER  (China  Review,  Vol.  XX,  p.  15),  in  his 
translation  of  this  passage,  explains  si-pi  as  a  word  of  the  Sien-pi  language.  See  now 
R.  and  H.  TORII,  Etudes  arch6ologiques  (Journal  of  the  College  of  Science,  Vol.  36, 
Tokyo,  1914,  p.  82,  and  Plate  XII).  The  same  word  is  used  again  by  our  author  in 
the  description  of  the  swords  made  in  Ta-li;  the  sheaths  are  colored  vermilion,  and 
painted  in  their  upper  part  with  a  design  like  those  occurring  on  buckles  (si  pi  hua 
w&ri).  Similarly  it  is  employed  in  the  Ling-wai  tai  ta  (published  by  Chou  K'u-fei  in 
1 178)  in  the  description  of  the  saddles  of  the  Man  (Ch.  6,  p.  5),  which  are  varnished 
red  and  black  like  the  designs  on  buckles  (ju  si  pi  wen).  This  term  is  not  registered 
in  the  P'ei  wfa  yun  fu. 

4  The  Ling-Wai  tai  ta  (Ch.  7,  p.  9),  composed  by  Chou  K'u-fei  in  1 178,  informs  us 
that  the  shells  utilized  in  the  kingdom  of  Ta-li  for  the  decoration  of  armor  and 
helmets  came  from  the  island  of  Hainan;  they  are  called  "large  shells"  (ta  pei),  in 
the  works  on  natural  history  "purple  shells"  (ts'e  pei).  They  are  described  as  being 
round  on  the  back,  with  purple  flecks,  and  with  deep  cracks  on  the  surface. 

6  See  above,  p.  185.  Such  combinations  are  suggested  to  the  learned  Chinese 
authors  by  their  literary  education,  but  certainly  are  no  evidence  for  the  shell  decora- 
tions of  the  Man  being  really  due  to  a  stimulus  received  from  ancient  China.  The 


194  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

As  to  the  Li,  the  inhabitants  of  the  island  of  Hainan,  the  same  author 
states  that  they  make  helmets  of  plaited  rattan. 

A  cuirass  of  the  Lolo  is  figured  and  described  by  F.  STARR.  x  It  is 
composed  of  heavy,  moulded  plates  of  thick  leather,  varnished  black 
and  decorated  in  red  and  yellow,  the  shoulders  being  protected  by  two 
projecting  wings.  From  this  plastron  is  suspended  an  apron  of  seven 
horizontal  rows  of  scales,  each  row  overlapping  the  one  above  it,  and 
the  scales  in  each  row  overlapping.  The  mode  of  wear  of  this  armor 
may  be  seen  in  the  portrait  of  the  Lolo  chief  Ma-tu  figured  by  CH. 
FRANCOIS,  2  who  states  that  these  cuirasses  are  made  of  buffalo-skin 
painted  with  various  colors,  somewhat  similar  in  shape  to  the  ancient 
Japanese  armor.3 

Two  specimens  of  Lolo  armor  are  described  by  HERBERT  MUELLER,* 
which  are  of  the  same  type  as  the  one  figured  by  Starr,  only  that  those 
have  the  central  breastplate,  which  is  apparently  lost  in  the  latter  speci- 
men. Neither  Starr  nor  Mueller  has  recognized  what  type  of  armor  is 
here  represented.  It  is  not  armor  of  a  uniform  structure,  but  one 
in  which  two  principles  are  combined,  that  of  sheets,  and  that  of  plates 
or  laminae.  The  sheets  form  the  body  armor  proper,  ten  in  number, 


employment  of  shells  for  decorative  purposes,  on  the  contrary,  is  a  general  charac- 
teristic of  all  cultures  in  south-eastern  Asia  and  Tibet,  where  they  are  employed  in 
a  manner  foreign  to  the  Chinese.  The  Tibetan  women  use  large  shells  as  bracelets, 
and  wear  girdles,  to  which  rows  of  shells  are  attached.  It  is  surprising  to  find  these 
in  the  high  mountainous  regions  of  Sze-ch'uan  (for  instance,  in  Romi-Drango),  in 
isolated  spots  remote  from  the  sea,  whither  these  shells  must  have  been  brought 
from  India  via  Tibet,  or  from  Burma  by  way  of  Yun-nan.  The  women  of  the  P'u- 
jfin,  a  tribe  of  the  T'ai  or  Shan  stock  formerly  inhabiting  Yun-nan,  used  to  wear  a 
short  skirt,  to  which  ten  rows  of  marine  shells  were  fastened  all  round  (C.  SAINSON, 
Histoire  particuliere  du  Nan-Tchao,  p.  164).  The  women  of  the  White  Kuo-lo  or 
Lo-lo  covered  their  heads  with  black  cloth  adorned  with  shells  (ibid.,  p.  167) ;  compare 
also  pp.  170,  175,  179,  185,  in  regard  to  other  tribes  who  observed  the  same  practice. 
An  interesting  study  of  the  Indian  shell  industry  was  recently  published  by  J. 
HORNELL  (The  Chank  Bangle  Industry,  Memoirs  As.  Soc.  Bengal,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  407- 
448,  Calcutta,  1913). 

1  Lolo  Objects  in  the  Public  Museum,  Milwaukee  (Bulletin  of  the  Public  Museum 
of  the  City  of  Milwaukee,  Vol.  I,  1911,  p.  216  and  Plate  III,  8). 

2  Notes  sur  les  Lo-lo  du  Kien-tchang  (Bulletin  de  la  Societe  (TAnthropologie,  1904, 
p.  640). 

1  The  correctness  of  this  comparison  seems  to  me  doubtful.  PLAYFAIR  (China 
Review,  Vol.  V,  p.  93)  has  drawn  from  a  modern  Chinese  source  the  following  notes 
on  armor  among  the  Kiu-ku  Miao:  "The  crown  of  the  head  is  protected  by  an  iron 
helmet  which  leaves  the  back  of  the  head  exposed.  On  the  shoulders  they  wear  two 
pieces  of  hammered  iron  armor,  of  considerable  weight,  which  act  as  a  face-guard. 
Their  body  armor  covers  the  whole  of  the  back  and  the  chest.  In  addition  they  wear 
iron  chain  mail  covering  the  entire  body  and  weighing  about  thirty  catties;  they 
have  the  appearance  of  being  enclosed  in  a  cage.  Their  legs  are  cased  in  iron  greaves 
of  great  strength.  They  carry  in  their  left  hand  a  wooden  shield,  in  their  right  a 
sharp-edged  spear."  Chain  mail  is  discussed  in  Chapter  IV. 

4  Baessler-Archiv,  Vol.  Ill,  1912,  p.  59  and  Plate  III. 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  ARCHAIC  PERIOD  195 

a  breast  and  a  back  sheet,1  and  eight  below  these  for  the  protection  of  the 
abdomen  and  loins.  Combined  with  this  leather  sheet  armor  are 
tasses  consisting  of  six  or  seven  horizontal  rows,  each  composed  of 
small  rectangular  leather  laminae,  arranged  in  vertical  position.  The 
leather  sheets  and  plates  are  varnished  red  on  the  outside 2  and  yellow 
on  the  lower  side.  Mr.  Mueller  remarks  that  parallels  to  this  armor  are 
hardly  known,  but  that,  as  far  as  can  be  judged  from  the  pictures 
preserved,  a  certain  relationship,  however  distant,  with  ancient  Chinese 
armor  seems  to  exist.  Unfortunately  he  does  not  state  to  what  kind  of 
pictures  he  refers,  nor  in  what  the  supposed  resemblance  should  con- 
sist. There  is  hardly  any  solid  foundation  for  this  opinion.  This 
type  of  armor,  on  the  contrary,  although  it  agrees  in  some  features 
with  one  represented  on  certain  Chinese  clay  figures  of  the  T'ang  period 
(Plate  XXXI),  does  not  meet  with  any  exact  counterpart  among 
Chinese  specimens  known  to  us;  nor  is  such  a  connection  at  the  outset 
very  probable,  since  the  affinities  of  Man  armor,  as  has  been  pointed 
out,  go  with  that  of  the  Shan,  and  are  accordingly  focussed  on  another 
culture-zone. 


Besides  the  word  kia,  another  word  for  armor  occurs  in  the  Shi 
king,  and  this  is  the  word  kiai  (No.  1518).  It  is  once  used  with  reference 
to  great  armor  donned  by  a  king; 3  and  on  another  occasion  it  refers  to 
a  team  of  four  horses  in  a  war-chariot,  clad  with  armor.4  LEGGE, 
following  the  Chinese  comment,  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  meaning  of 
kiai  is  identical  with  that  of  kia;  but  they  are  two  different  words 
written  with  two  different  symbols,  arid  it  is  therefore  justifiable  to 
presume  that  they  denote  two  different  types  of  armor.  As  the  word 
kiai  is  used  to  designate  the  scales  of  fishes,  turtles,  lobsters,  and  other 
aquatic  scaly  animals,  it  is  most  likely  that  it  was  this  notion  of  the  word 
transferred  to  a  type  of  body  armor,  and  that  it  related  to  scale  armor 
(lorica  squamata),  the  scales  being  cut  out  of  hide  or  leather.6  There 

1  Plastron  and  dossiere. 

1  In  accordance  with  the  ancient  Chinese  cuirasses,  as  mentioned  in  Tso  chuan 
(see  above,  p.  181). 

*  LEGGE,  Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  IV,  p.  606. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  131. 

8  LEGGE  (/.  c.,  p.  194)  states  that  the  armor  (not  mail)  for  the  horses  was  made 
of  thin  plates  of  metal,  scale-like.  It  is  most  improbable  that  the  scales  were  of  metal 
at  the  time  of  the  Shi  king.  See  Chapter  VII.  The  same  semasiological  develop- 
ment as  in  Chinese  kiai  is  illustrated  in  the  Tibetan  word  k'rab  and  the  Burmese  wor,d 
k'yap,  that  in  the  first  instance  denote  scale  (scale  of  a  fish),  and  secondly  a  body 


armor,  which  is  now  the  usual  meaning;  and  it  is  further  interesting  that  Tibetan 
the  meaning  of  "shield,  buckler"  (see  JASCHKE,  Tibetan-English  Dic- 


k'rab  has  also 


196  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

is  unfortunately  no  description  of  this  armor  in  any  ancient  text.  In 
the  Li  ki  the  word  occurs  several  times,  the  rules  of  politeness  excusing 
the  warrior  clad  with  a  kiai  from  making  a  bow ; l  but  nothing  is  brought 
forward  to  add  to  the  knowledge  of  the  subject. 2  I  have  never  seen  in 
China  any  suit  of  armor  made  of  scales  of  leather;  and  they  are  not  like- 
ly to  have  been  made  at  later  ages  when  metal  was  available.  In 
Japan,  such  specimens  have  fortunately  survived;  and  the  one  figured 
by  B  ASHFORD  DEAN  3  may  give  us  an  excellent  idea  of  the  appearance  of 
the  ancient  Chinese  scaly  leather  coats.  It  is  attributed  to  the  Fuji- 
wara  period  (around  1000  A.D.),  and  described  as  a  primitive  type  of 
Japanese  harness,  the  single  laminae  being  of  boiled  leather,  cut  and 
beaten  into  pieces  shaped  like  fish-scales.  A  suit  of  copper  scale 
armor  obtained  in  Sze-ch'uan  (Plate  XIV)  may  be  regarded  as  the 
natural  continuation  of  the  ancient  leather  armor  of  the  same  type. 
The  scales  are  fastened  by  means  of  brass  wire  to  a  foundation  of  sack- 
cloth, and  overlap  one  another.  This  specimen,  weighing  38^  pounds, 
as  evidenced  by  the  effects  of  many  blows  and  bullet-holes  visible  in  the 
metal,  has  actually  been  employed  in  warfare. 4 

Scale  armor  is  distinctly  mentioned  in  the  Wan  hua  ku,  a  work 
written  at  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century;  but  this  passage  is  taken  from 
the  T'ang  leu  tien,  and  therefore  refers  to  the  T'ang  dynasty.6  The 

tionary,  p.  49).  In  all  probability,  the  Chinese  and  Tibetan  words  kiai  (or  kai)  and 
k'rab  are  anciently  related,  in  the  same  way  as  Tib.  k'rag  ("blood")  and  Chinese 
hiuet,  Tibetan  skrag-pa  ("to  be  afraid  of")  and  Chinese  kiii  (W.  GRUBE,  Die  sprach- 
geschichtliche  Stellung  des  Chinesischen,  p.  16),  Tib.  sgrog-pa  ("to  tie")  and  Chin. 
kiao  (CONRADY,  Eine  indochinesische  Causativ-Denominativ-Bildung,  p.  VH).  Also 
the  Chinese  word  kia,  "armor"  (ancient  pronunciation  kiap,  rhyme  hiap),  may  be 
allied  to  Tibetan  k'rab.  It  will  be  seen  below  (Chapter  IV)  that  scale  armor  repre- 
sents the  earliest  type  of  armor  in  Tibet,  Persia,  and  India. 

1  COUVREUR,  Li  ki,  Vol.  I,  p.  65;  Vol.  II,  p.  13. 

*  The  scales  of  hide  armor  were  called  kia  cha  (No.  127).  This  may  be  inferred 
from  a  passage  in  the  Chan  kuo  ts'e  (quoted  in  P'ei  wdn  yunfu,  Ch.  97,  p.  5  b),  where 
Su  Tai  (third  and  fourth  century  B.C.;  GILES,  Biographical  Dictionary,  p.  682) 
addresses  Yen  Wang,  and  says,  "You  cut  the  scales  of  the  buff-coat  yourself,  and 
your  wife  fastens  them  together  by  means  of  cords."  The  word  siao  (No.  4309), 
which  is  here  utilized  and  means  "to  scrape,  pare,  trim,"  indicates  that  leather  is  in 
question,  and  that  the  leather  strips  were  trimmed  into  a  certain  shape  called  cha. 
Regarding  the  technical  meaning  of  this  word  see  p.  210,  note  3. 

1  Catalogue  of  the  Loan  Collection  of  Japanese  Armor,  p.  39  (The  Metropolitan 
Museum  of  Art,  Hand-Book  No.  14,  New  York,  1903). 

4  Consul  BEDLOE  (Consular  Reports  on  Commerce,  Manufactures,  etc.,  No.  147, 
p.  494,  Washington,  1892)  states,  "Scale  mail,  at  an  early  period,  was  carried  to  a 
high  perfection.  The  scales  were  applied  to  cloth  or  leather  at  first,  as  spangles  are 
to  gauze,  and  later  as  tiles  or  slates  are  to  the  boards  of  a  roof.  They  were  composed 
of  iron,  pewter,  silver,  gold,  or  of  various  oriental  alloys.  In  making  a  suit,  scales  of 
one  kind  were  usually  employed,  but  combinations  were  frequent,  in  which  metals 
of  contrasting  colors  were  used.  A  good  suit  of  armor  can  be  bought  at  prices  rang- 
ing from  $10  to  $150." 

8  BRETSCHNEIDER,  Botanicon  Sinicum,  pt.  I,  p.  160,  No.  330.  The  above  text 
will  be  found  in  the  Chapter  on  Armor  (kia  chou  pu)  in  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'eng.  Ko  chi 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  ARCHAIC  PERIOD  197 

third  kind  of  armor  known  at  that  time  is  termed  in  that  book  si  lin 
kia  ("armor  of  thin  scales"),  and  is  classified  among  iron  armor.  The 
very  name  implies  that  it  is  a  question  of  scale  armor.  The  fourth 
variety  of  armor  is  styled  shan  w&n  kia  ("armor  with  a  mountain 
pattern") ;  a  zigzag  design  or  a  continuous  row  of  triangles  being  under- 
stood by  the  latter  name.  Also  this,  likewise  made  of  iron,  was 
perhaps  scale  armor;1  as  presumably  also  the  fifth,  designated  "black 
hammer  armor"  (wu  chui  kia),  likewise  of  iron.  No  descriptions  of 
these  pieces  are  furnished  in  the  book  mentioned. 

Leather  scale  armor  was  still  used  by  the  Mongols,  as  attested  by 
Friar  WILLIAM  OF  RUBRUCK  (i  2*53) ,  who  states, "  I  saw  two  who  had  come 
to  present  themselves  before  Mangu,  armed  with  jackets  of  convex  pieces 
of  hard  leather,  which  were  most  unfit  and  unwieldy."  2 

In  the  Ming  period  the  technical  term  for  armor-scales  is  "wil- 
low-leaf" (liu  ye).  We  read  in  the  Statutes  of  the  Ming  Dynasty 
(Ta  Ming  hui  tien)  that  in  1393  six  thousand  sets  of  "willow-leaf  armor" 
and  helmets  of  chain  mail  were  ordered  for  the  soldiers  of  the  body- 
guard serving  in  the  Imperial  City. 

The  great  antiquity  of  hide  scale  armor  is  an  important  fact  to  us,  as 
there  are  certain  ancient  clay  figures  on  which  this  type  of  armor  is 
represented.  These  belong  to  the  earliest  that  we  have,  and  range  in  the 
archaic  period;8  and  it  will  be  seen  from  the  notes  devoted  to  their  dis- 

king  yuan  (Ch.  41,  p.  3)  and  P'ei  wen  yunfu  (Ch.  106,  p.  73)  give  exactly  the  same 
quotation  extracted  from  the  T'ang  leu  tien  (the ' '  Six  Statutes  of  the  T'ang  Dynasty''), 
drawn  up  by  the  Emperor  Yuan-tsung  in  the  early  part  of  the  eighth  century  (  WY- 
LIE,  Notes  on  Chinese  Literature,  p.  67;  and  above,  p.  189).  The  only  additional 
matter  prefixed  to  the  latter  text  is  that  the  thirteen  kinds  of  armor  enumerated  were 
ordered  to  be  made  by  the  Imperial  Armory  (wu  k'u). 

1  P'ei  wen  yun  fu  (Ch.  106,  p.  74)  quotes  the  T'ang  ski  lu  to  the  effect  that  the 
armors  called  shan  wen  kia  were  made  by  the  Emperor  T'ai-tsung  from  iron  (black 
metal)  dyed  in  five  colors,  so  that  the  "mountain  pattern"  may  have  been  brought 
out  by  the  color-work.  Five-colored  armor  (wu  ts'ai  kia)  is  mentioned  in  T'ang  shu 
(Ch.  li  yo  chi,  ibid.,  p.  73).  The  Pek-tsi,  a  Korean  tribe,  brought  "varnished  armor 
of  metal"  (kin  hiu  k'ai)  to  the  Chinese  General  Li  Tsi  (GILES,  Biographical  Dic- 
tionary, p.  421),  who  subjugated  Korea  between  644  and  658;  on  these  armors,  which 
were  used  by  the  Chinese  cavalry,  five  mountain  patterns  (shan  ngu  win)  were  repre- 
sented by  means  of  iron,  which  may  be  understood  in  the  sense  that  five  iron  scales 
were  arranged  in  such  a  manner  as  to  suggest  the  design  of  a  mountain.  This  passage 
is  contained  likewise  in  T'ang  shu  (Ch.  220,  p.  3  b). 

1  W.  W.  ROCKHILL,  The  Journey  of  William  of  Rubruck,  p.  261  (London,  Hak- 
luyt  Society,  1900).  In  the  Mongol  period,  designs  of  a  tiger  or  lion  skin,  and  the 
design  of  metal-armor  scales,  were  also  painted  on  hide  armor  ( Yuan  ski,  Ch.  78, 
p.  12,  K'ien-lung  edition). 

1  The  clay  figures  in  our  collection  come  down  from  different  periods.  A  rigid 
classification  coinciding  with  dynastic  periods  cannot  be  established:  two  large 
groups  may  be  distinguished, —  archaic  and  mediaeval.  The  two  merge  into  each 
other.  The  former  may  be  said  to  comprise  roughly  the  Chou  and  Han  periods,  and 
to  go  down  perhaps  with  some  types  into  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries;  the  latter 
occupy  an  epoch  from  the  sixth  to  the  eighth  century.  The  term  "archaic "  is  merely 


198  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

cussion  in  the  second  part  of  this  publication  that,  according  to  my 
interpretation,  they  are  intended  for  the  figure  of  the  ancient  shaman l 
(wu,  or  fang  siang  shi). 

Among  the  exorcists  of  the  Chou  period,  the  Fang  siang  shi 2  occupies 
a  prominent  place.  According  to  the  Chou  li,3  he  donned  a  bear-skin 
decorated  with  four  golden  eyes,4  black  trousers,  and  a  red  jacket. 
Armed  with  a  spear  and  a  shield,  accompanied  by  a  suite  of  a  hundred 
attendants,  he  performed  the  purifications  of  every  season,  searching 
through  the  houses  and  driving  out  disease.  At  a  great  funeral  service 
he  strided  in  front  of  the  coffin,  and  accompanied  it  to  the  grave. 

intended  to  convey  a  chronological  notion,  but  is  not  applied  here  with  reference 
to  technique  or  style.  The  age  of  the  T'ang  dynasty  may  safely  be  regarded  as  the 
terminus  ad  quern  for  the  industry  of  burial  clay  figures,  for  we  know  surely  enough 
that  under  the  Sung  and  Ming  dynasties  the  paraphernalia  for  the  grave  were  carved 
from  wood,  but  not  modelled  in  clay.  This  question  will  be  treated  fully  in  Part  II. 

1  Our  word  "shaman "  is  derived  from  the  Tungusian  languages  (Manchu  saman, 
Gold  Sama).    The  Mirror  of  the  Manchu  Language  (Manju  hergen-i  buleku  bithe) 
explains  the  word  saman  by  means  of  the  Chinese  phrase  chu  shen  jen  ("a  man  who 
invokes  or  conjures  the  spirits");  and  it  is  denned,  enduri  weceku-de  jalbarime  baire 
nialma  ("a  man  who  prays  to  and  conjures  spirits  by  sacrificing").    It  is  said  in  the 
same  Dictionary  that  the  saman  acts  near  the  sick-bed,  and  that  there  are  male  and 
female  samasa  (plural  of  saman).    The  Tungusian  word  has  no  connection  whatever 
with  Chinese  ska-men  (from  Sanskrit  Qramana,  Pali  samana)  denoting  a  Buddhist 
ascetic  (YuLE  and  BURNELL,  Hobson-Jobson,  p.  820) ;  a  Buddhist  monk  and  a  Siberian 
shaman  will  always  remain  two  distinct  affairs.    PELLIOT  (Journal  asiatique,  Mars- 
Avril,  1913,  p.  468)  has  traced  the  word  Saman  in  the  language  of  the  Niuchi  to  a  Chi- 
nese document  of  the  twelfth  century.    The  identity  of  the  notion  conveyed  by  the 
Chinese  word  wu  ("sorcerer")  with  the  word  "shaman"  becomes  evident  from  T'ang 
shu,  where  in  the  description  of  the  Kirghiz  it  is  remarked,  "They  call  their  sorcerers 
kan  (hu  wu  wei  kan)."    The  latter  word  (formerly  articulated  kam)  is  identical  with 
Turkish  kam,  the  general  designation  for  the  shaman  in  all  Turkish  dialects  (compare 
W.  SCHOTT,  XJber  die  echten  Kirgisen,  Abhandlungen  der  Berliner  Akademie,  1865, 
p.  440).    While  reading  the  proofs,  I  receive  No.  3  of  the  Revue  orientate  (Vol.  XIV, 
1914),  in  which  J.  NEMETH  devotes  a  special  investigation  to  the  origin  of  the  word 
saman:  by  applying  methods  of  comparative  philology,  he  arrives  at  the  result  that 
the  word  is  an  ancient  property  of  the  Turkish- Mongol  languages. 

2  Cheng  K'ang-ch'Sng,  in  his  commentary  to  the  Chou  li  (Biox,  Vol.  II,  p.  150), 
explains  the  word  fang  siang  shi  as  "expellers  of  formidable  things,"  by  substituting 
two  other  words  for/ang  siang  yielding  this  sense;  but  this  conjecture  is  not  adopted 
by  the  editors  of  the  Chou  li  under  K'ien-lung.    BIOT  translates  the  term,  much  too 
literally,  by  inspecteurs  de  region,  or  by  preservateur  universel.    GRUBE  (Religion  und 
Kultus  der  Chinesen,  p.  51)  renders  it  "supervisors  of  the  four  points  of  the  com- 
pass."   DE  GROOT  (The  Religious  System  of  China,  Vol.  VI,  p.  974)  proposes  the 
translation,  "inspectors  or  rescuers  of  the  country  to  the  four  quarters."     These 
translations  do  not  render  account  of  the  two  words  fang  and  siang:  fang  (No.  3435) 
means  not  only  "place,  region,  quarter,"  but  also  "a  recipe,  a  prescription;"  and 
fang  shi,  according  to  GILES,  is  "a  master  of  recipes, —  a  medicine  man;  a  necroman- 
cer."   The  word  siang*  (No.  4249)  means  "to  judge  of  by  looks;  to  practise  physiog- 
nomy" (hence  in  Buddhism:  the  lakshana  or  physical  marks  of  beauty  of  a  Buddha). 
The  fang  siang  shi,  accordingly,  is  a  "doctor"  who  has  two  functions, —  he  prescribes 
medicines,  and  practises  the  art  of  physiognomy  (siang  fa). 

*  BIOT,  Vol.  II,  p.  225. 

4  Apparently  a  mask,  which  was  worn  by  the  Chinese  shamans  in  all  exorcising 
ceremonies  (see  DE  GROOT,  The  Religious  System  of  China,  Vol.  VI,  pp.  974-980, 
1151,  1187  et  seq.;  also,  Vol.  I,  p.  162). 


PERIOD  199 

When  the  coffin 'was  lowered  fifitt  ftfee  grave,  ne  struck  the  four  corners 
with  the  speaSjIn  6W$M$Qy&^€i,aw_ay  the  spirits  wang-liang.1  The 
bear-skin,  a  CMne^e  commentator  explams£&r^s  the  purpose  of  lend- 
ing him  a  form^ble  appeafttmce?  arid!  the  four^golden  eyes  testify  that 
he  spies  in  the  ft^rVegions  ofTihe  empire^  all  places  where  contagious 
diseases  are  raging^^The" ^spear  seems^^D  Indicate  that  he  combats 
malignant  spirits,  and  ^fte$«j^*jkl^is  bis  means  of  defence  against  their 
attacks. 

The  two  figures  of  shamans  represented  on  Plates  XV-XVII  are  clad 
with  tight-fitting,  sleeveless  leather  jerkins,  the  material  being  cut  out  in 
the  form  of  scales  arranged  in  regular  horizontal  rows.  On  the  front 
(Plates  XV,  XVII)  the  scales  are  carefully  outlined  in  black  ink  or 
varnish  over  a  coating  of  pipe  clay;2  on  the  back  of  one  of  the  figures 
(Plate  XVI)  they  are  impressed  in  the  surface  of  the  clay,  presumably 
by  means  of  a  stamp.  This  process  is  not  applied  to  the  other  figure, 
whose  back  is  plain.  In  both,  the  jerkin  is  held  by  means  of  a  leather 
belt  tightly  drawn  around  the  loins.  It  does  not  seem  to  have  a  slit 
in  front,  and  was  presumably  put  over  the  head.  The  shaman  in  Plates 
XV  and  XVI  wears  a  hide  helmet  surmounted  by  a  queer  crest,  and 
laid  out  in  vertical  grooves;  on  the  back  (Plate  XVI)  coifs  of  hide  scales 
are  attached  to  it.  The  other  shaman  (Plate  XVII)  is  adorned  with  a 
snail-like,  high  tuft  of  hair  held  by  a  hoop.  Both  are  manifestly  repre- 
sented in  the  attitude  of  warriors,  displaying  the  same  pose  of  arms  and 
feet.  The  right  arm  is  raised,  the  thumb  being  placed  against  the 
second  finger:  they  are  apparently  in  the  act  of  throwing  a  spear;  and 
the  spear,  presumably  of  wood,  may  have  actually  been  in  their  hands. 
The  left  arm  reaching  forth  with  clinched  fist,  and  the  feet  wide  apart, 
correspond  to  this  action;  and  the  two  men  naturally  concentrate  their 
weight  on  their  right  sides.  The  lively  fighting  attitude  and  the  body 
armor  show  us  that  the  two  shamans  are  engaged  in  a  battle  with  the 
demons;  and,  if  the  tradition  of  the  Chinese  is  correct  that  such  clay 
figures  were  interred  in  the  graves  during  the  Chou  period,  we  may  infer 
that,  as  the  shaman  warded  off  pestilence  and  malignant  spirits  from  the 
grave  before  the  lowering  into  it  of  the  coffin,  he  continued  in  this 
miniature  form  to  act  as  the  efficient  guardian  of  the  occupant  of  the 
grave. 

Helmets  bedecked  with  scales  occur  also  in  Chinese  illustrations 
(Fig.  33),  and  seem  to  have  remained  in  the  possession  of  shamans,  even 
though  they  did  not  don  the  scale  armor.  The  clay  figure  of  a  magician 

1  No.  12,518.  These  sprites  are  mentioned  among  those  haunting  travellers  in 
the  sand  deserts  of  Turkistan  (Pei  ski,  Ch.  97,  p.  5). 

1  It  is  impossible  to  bring  these  fine  lines  out  in  the  photographs. 


200  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

(Plate  XVIII) ,  which  is  much  later  than  the  two  others  shown  and  pre- 
sumably no  older  than  the  T'ang  period,  has  a  helmet  with  hood,  on 
which  rows  of  scales  are  outlined  in  ink.  A  cape  of  tiger-skin  envelops 
his  shoulders.  He  wears  a  necklace  and  jewelry  with  floral  designs  on  his 
chest.  His  coat  is  girdled;  and  a  shirt  of  mail,  presumably  plate  mail, l 
is  emerging  from  beneath  it.  In  his  left  hand,  which  is  perforated,  he 
seems  to  have  seized  a  spear  or  sword. 2  A  rectangular  bag,  which  pos- 
sibly serves  for  the  storage  of  his  paraphernalia,  is  attached  to  the  belt 
on  his  left-hand  side.  The  wearing  of  a  coat  over  the  armor  is  character- 
istic of  the  T'ang  period;  and  the  artistic,  though  conventional,  modelling 
of  the  face  would  seem  to  point  to  the  same  epoch. 

In  general,  the  conditions  of  defensive  armor,  as  encountered  in  the 
archaic  epoch  of  China,  show  a  striking  coincidence  with  those  found  in 
other  ancient  and  primitive  culture-groups  of  Asia,  and  those  still  alive 
in  primitive  societies.  On  the  whole,  the  military  equipment  of  the 
ancient  Chinese  in  principle  agrees,  for  instance,  granted  the  difference 
of  material,  with  that  of  the  Scythians  as  described  by  STRABO  (VII, 
3),  who  states  that  they  used  raw  ox-hide  helmets  and  cuirasses,  wicker 
shields,  spears,  bows,  and  swords. 

1  See  Chapter  V. 

1  Presumably  one  of  wood,  which  has  decayed  under  ground. 


III.    DEFENSIVE   ARMOR   OF   THE   HAN   PERIOD 

"Your  servant  understands  that,  according  to  the  clas- 
sics, the  perfection  of  government  consists  in  preventing 
insurrectionary  troubles,  and  the  highest  point  of  military 
art  is  to  avoid  the  occasion  of  war. 

YANG  HIUNG  in  Ts'ien  Han  shu. 

The  sculpture  of  the  Han  period  unfortunately  furnishes  no  decisive 
contribution  to  the  question  of  body  armor.  While  possibly  the  artists 
may  have  intended  in  some  cases  to  represent  armor,  as  perhaps  in  some 
of  the  fighting  horsemen,  the  stone  work  does  not  minutely  indicate 
texture,  and  the  material  is  such  that  no  positive  inferences  can  be 
drawn  from  it.1  The  only  piece  of  defensive  armor  that  is  clearly  enough 
outlined  on  these  monuments  is  the  shield  or  buckler,  usually  handled  in 
connection  with  a  sword.  It  is  oblong  and  rectangular  in  shape  with  a 
convex  curvature  in  the  centre,  causing  a  hollow  on  the  inner  side  where 
the  wearer's  hand  finds  its  place,  and  is  notched  in  the  middle  of  the 
upper  and  lower  ends  (Fig.  25).  It  is  a  parrying  shield  easily  movable, 
and  sufficient  to  protect  the  left  arm  and  to  ward  off  blows  struck  at  it.8 

It  is  notable  that  many  soldiers  represented  on  the  Han  monuments 
carry  their  shields  also  in  their  right  hands,  while  manipulating  the 
swords  in  their  left;  I  presume  that  the  fighters,  when  wearied  out, 
sought  relief  in  this  manner  by  changing  weapons  from  one  hand  to 
the  other.  In  Fig.  25  a  left-handed,  and  in  Fig.  26  two  right-handed 
shield-bearers  have  been  selected.  The  same  shield  is  employed  also  by 
soldiers  fighting  from  war-chariots. 

Another  form  of  shield  is  much  larger,  more  convex,  almost  roof- 
shaped,  decorated  with  what  appears  like  a  tree  design,  and  capable  of 
hiding  a  man's  face  and  the  upper  part  of  his  trunk  (Fig.  27).  * 

1  The  difficulty  of  studying  from  the  bas-reliefs  the  costume  and  the  ornaments 
displayed  on  it,  is  acknowledged  also  by  M.  CHAVANNES  in  his  recent  work  Mission 
arch6ologique  dans  la  Chine  septentrionale,  Vol.  I,  part  I :  La  sculpture  a  l'6poque 
desHan,  p.  39  (Paris,  1913).  On  a  stone  of  the  Hiao-t'ang-shan,  M.  CHAVANNES 
(p.  82)  has  correctly  recognized  some  warriors  clad  with  cuirasses;  but  hardly  any  other 
conclusion  than  that  it  is  in  general  the  question  of  hide  armor  can  be  drawn  from 
these  representations.  These  warriors  are  barbarians  styled  Hu,  and  in  all  probability 
Huns  (Hiung-nu,  who  are  frequently  termed  also  Hu).  We  shall  come  back  to  this 
monument  below  in  speaking  of  the  tactics  of  the  Huns. 

1  See,  for  example,  CHAVANNES,  Mission,  Nos.  131,  136. 

3  Ibid.,  No.  190.  CHAVANNES  (La  sculpture  &  l'6poque  des  Han,  p.  251)  states 
that  this  buckler  is  of  rattan,  doubtless  for  the  reason  that  there  are  still  rattan  shields 
in  China;  but  these  are  always  circular,  almost  half -spheroidal,  and  plaited  in  basketry 
style.  The  present  specimen  is  a  rectangle,  and  exhibits  no  characteristic  features  of 

201 


2   02 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


FIG.  25. 
Left-handed  Shield-Bearer  (Sketch  from  Rubbing  of  Han  Bas-relief). 


FIG.  26. 
Right-handed  Shield-Bearers  (Sketch  from  Rubbing  of  Han  Bas-relief). 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  HAN  PERIOD 


203 


In  the  "Battle  on  the  Bridge,"  l  a.  picture  executed  with  a  great  deal 
of  life  and  motion,  the  manner  of  handling  the  buckler  in  close  combat 

is  vividly  illustrated. 
The  commander  of  the 
force,  passing  the  bridge 
in  his  chariot,  defends 
himself  with  his  sword 


FIG.  27. 

Han  Soldier  with  Rectangular  Buckler  (Sketch  after 
Chavannes,  Mission,  No.  190). 


FIG.  28. 

Soldier    with    Circular    Buckler 

(Sketch  from  Rubbing  of  Han 

Bas-relief  representing  the 

Battle  on  the  Bridge). 


against  an  arbalist  whose  crossbow  he  has  adroitly  overturned  with  a 
thrust  of  his  shield,  while  a  footman  is  attacking  his  rearing  horse 

rattan  plaiting.  It  is  much  more  likely  to  be  of  wood  covered  with  hide,  on  which 
the  design  is  painted.  The  rattan  shields  have  often  been  described  and  illustrated 
(AMIOT,  Art  militaire,  Mimoires  concernant  les  Chinois,  Vol.  VII,  p.  371,  and  Plate 
XXX,  figs.  10  and  n;  DE  GUIGNES,  Voyages  a  Peking,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  20;  Atlas  of 
STAUNTON'S  Embassy,  Plates  XVII  and  XIX,  No.  5,  etc.).  In  Peking  I  had  occasion 
in  1901  to  see  these  shields  used  by  fencers,  and  procured  two  specimens  painted 
with  tiger-heads  for  the  American  Museum,  New  York.  The  general  opinion  of  the 
Chinese  is  that  rattan  shields  are  a  matter  of  recent  development,  and  that  originally 
shields  were  made  from  a  combination  of  wood  and  hide  (see  Huang  ck'ao  li  k'i  t'u 
shi,  Ch.  15,  p.  21,  where  the  earliest  relevant  text  quoted  is  the  Ki  siao  sin  shu  of 
1566  by  Tsi  Ki-kuang,  followed  by  the  Wu  pei  chi  of  1621  by  Mao  Yuan-i).  The 
earliest  illustration  of  the  rattan  shield  I  am  able  to  trace  is  in  the  Lien  ping  shi  ki 
(Ch.  5,  p.  5,  ed.  of  Shou  shan  ko  ts'ung  shu,  Vol.  52),  written  in  1568  (WvLiE,  Notes, 
p.  91).  Merely  judging  from  its  circular  shape,  the  round  shield  above  referred  to, 
in  the  hand  of  the  soldier  at  the  foot  of  the  bridge,  might  be  a  rattan  shield;  but  I 
venture  to  doubt  that  the  latter  was  in  existence  during  the  Han  period.  The  shield 
in  question  may  as  well  be  of  wood  or  hide  (compare  Figs.  28,  30).  The  rattan  shield 
painted  with  a  tiger's  head  was  officially  introduced  into  the  army  under  the  Manchu. 
This  troop  was  uniformed  with  a  short  jacket  of  yellow  cotton  stuff  on  which  tiger 
stripes  were  represented  in  black,  a  pair  of  leggings  and  boots  with  the  same  design, 
and  a  hood  in  the  shape  of  a  tiger-head  (see  Huang  ch'ao  li  k'i  t'u  shi,  Ch.  13, 
pp.  49-50;  the  shield  is  figured  and  described  in  Ch.  15,  p.  21). 
1  CHAVANNES,  Mission,  No.  136. 


204  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

with  a  spear.  On  this  representation  we  notice  another  type  of  shield 
of  circular  shape  (Fig.  28)  on  the  arm  of  a  warrior  who  is  posted  on 
the  left-hand  side  at  the  foot  of  the  bridge.  The  question  as  to  the 
material  from  which  this  shield  may  have  been  wrought  is  not 
susceptible  of  positive  decision.  Certain  it  is,  however,  that  three 
distinct  types  of  buckler  are  depicted  on  the  monuments  of  the  Han.1 

Of  the  three  types  of  Han  bucklers,  the  first  may  be  ascribed  as 
peculiar  to  the  period,  in  so  far  as  it  does  not  seem  to  have  survived  in 
later  ages;  it  is  not  alluded  to  in  military  literature,  nor  is  it  traceable 
among  the  specimens  of  shields  in  vogue  during  the  Ming  and  Manchu 
dynasties.  The  case  is  different  with  regard  to  the  two  remaining  types. 
The  greatest  authority  on  military  matters  is  Mao  Yuan-i,  who  published 
his  work  Wu  pei  chi  (not  mentioned  by  Wylie)  in  1621  (80  volumes). 
It  is  the  most  comprehensive  work  of  this  class,  and  the  one  best  il- 
lustrated. All  relevant  illustrations  of  the  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'$ng,  which 
quotes  this  author  as  Mao-tse,  are  derived  from  his  work.  In  accordance 
with  an  older  work  Wu  king  ("Canon  of  Military  Matters"),  he  dis- 
criminates between  two  main  types  of  shields,  the  long  shield  of  the 
footmen  (Fig.  29),  and  the  round  shield  of  the  horsemen  (Fig.  30). 
The  former  is  entirely  made  of  wood,  and,  being  as  tall  as  a  man,  com- 
pletely screens  his  body.  It  rests  on  the  ground,  and  is  a  veritable  fence 
or  bulwark. 2  The  latter,  of  wood  covered  with  hide,  is  carried  by  the 
cavalier  on  his  left  arm,  which  is  passed  through  the  two  straps  in  order 
to  protect  his  left  shoulder  against  arrow-shots,  while  he  brandishes  in 
his  right  hand  the  short  sword.3  Mao  admits  that  it  offers  no  advan- 
tages, and  it  certainly  was  more  an  encumbrance  than  a  safeguard.  As 
the  round  buckler  is  peculiar  to  the  horsemen,  we  may  suppose  that  the 
Han  soldier  armed  with  it  is  an  equestrian  engaged  in  a  dismounted 
combat.  There  are  instances  on  record  to  the  effect  that  the  soldiers, 
especially  when  the  decisive  moment  approached,  dismounted  from 
their  horses,  marched  on  foot,  sword  in  hand,  and  engaged  in  close  com- 
bat.4 

From  the  wooden  documents  of  Turkistan  recently  edited  and  trans- 
lated by  M.  CHAVANNES  we  learn  that  the  shields  used  by  the  soldiers  of 
the  Han  period  were  red;  that  is  to  say,  they  were  made  of  wood,  and 

1  Thus  likewise  CHAVANNES,  La  sculpture,  p.  37. 

*  This  is  the  same  type  of  shield  as  that  figured  and  described  by  PH.  F.  v.  SIE- 
BOLD  (Nippon,  2d  ed.,  Vol.  I,  pp.  336,  337). 

J  The  horsemen  of  the  Kirgiz,  who  wore  wooden  cuishes,  fastened  a  round  shield 
to  their  left  shoulder  to  ward  off  arrow-shots  and  sword-cuts  (Tang  shu,  Ch.  2178, 
p.  8). 

4  Compare  the  battle  deciding  the  fate  of  Hiang  Yu  in  Shi  ki,  Ch.  7  (CHAVANNES, 
Les  Me'moires  historiques  de  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  Vol.  II,  pp.  318-320). 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  HAN  PERIOD 


205 


A 
• 
f 

m 

PIG.  29. 

Shield  of  Foot-Soldiers,  Exterior  (to  the  right)  and  Interior  (to  the  left).     From  Tu  ihu  to»  ck'tng. 


IE 


FIG.  30. 
Round  Shield  of  Equestrian  Soldiers,  Exterior  and  Interior. 


2o6  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

coated  with  a  red  varnish  to  protect  the  material  from  the  influences  of 
the  weather. l  They  were  turned  out  in  the  official  armory  of  Nan-yang 
in  Ho-nan  Province, 2  and  in  all  probability  were  adorned  with  the  tail- 
feathers  of  pigeons  fastened  to  the  lower  edge.  The  wooden  documents 
employ  the  word  tun, 3  once  formed  with  the  classifier  '  spear '  (mao) ; 4 
and  in  one  passage6  appears  the  word  p'ai  (No.  8574),  which,  as  far  as  I 
know,  is  thus  attested  for  the  first  time  in  the  Han  period.6 

In  his  Introduction  M.  CHAVANNES  has  given  an  admirable  sum- 
mary of  the  information  garnered  in  these  early  documents,  and  has 
drawn  a  vivid  picture  of  the  garrison  life  in  those  outposts  of  the  Chinese 
empire.7  He  has  sounded  also  the  sentiments  by  which  those  soldiers 
were  animated,  by  rendering  several  fine  pieces  of  poetry  of  the  T'ang 
period.  There  is  still  another,  contemporaneous  source  which  permits 
us  some  inferences  as  to  the  emotional  life  of  those  brave  Han  frontier- 
guards.  CHAVANNES8  has  ably  described  the  function  of  the  signal- 
towers  erected  along  the  frontier  at  intervals  averaging  thirty  H,  which 
served  as  optical  telegraphs  announcing  the  approach  of  hostile  van- 
guards by  means  of  huge  beacon-fires.  In  many  cases  the  guards 
stationed  in  these  towers  were  kept  alert  in  repelling  undesirable  in- 
vaders. 9  In  the  burial  pottery  of  the  Han  period,  which  is  a  microcosm 
of  the  culture  life  of  those  days,  we  find  a  number  of  miniature  models 

1  Compare  above,  p.  189. 

1  It  seems  to  have  been  customary  in  the  Han  period  to  occasionally  inter  armor 
and  shield  with  a  general.  We  learn  that  the  son  of  the  marshal  Chou  Ya-f  u  purchased 
from  an  officer  of  the  Imperial  Armory  a  cuirass  and  buckler  intended  for  the 
funeral  of  his  father  (L.  WIEGER,  Textes  historiques,  p.  448).  This  act  led  to  an  ac- 
cusation against  the  old  general,  which  resulted  in  his  suicide;  the  illegal  point  of 
the  case,  however,  was  sought  in  the  step  of  purchasing  imperial  property,  not  in  the 
intended  burial;  and  the  charge  was  forced,  as  the  Emperor  was  intent  on  causing 
the  downfall  of  the  old  officer.  The  Ku  kin  chu  by  Ts'ui  Pao  of  the  middle  of  the 
fourth  century  relates  that  in  the  third  year  of  the  reign  of  the  Emperor  Chang 
(78  A.D.)  people  dug  up  the  ground  of  a  burial-place  at  Yuan  in  Tan-yang  (An-hui 
Province)  and  found  in  it  a  piece  of  armor.  It  was  a  cuirass  (kia). 

I  CHAVANNES,  /.  c.,  Nos.  77,  763. 
4  No.  75. 

8  No.  682. 

8  The  Annals  of  the  Han  Dynasty  employ  neither  of  these  words,  but  the  word 
shun. 

I 1  can  only  join  Mr.  L.  C.  HOPKINS  (Journal  Royal  As.  Soc.,  1914,  p.  475)  in  the 
wish  that  the  substance  of  this  essay  may  be  made  more  generally  accessible.    Per- 
haps the  Royal  Asiatic  Society  itself  might  undertake  to  publish  an  English  transla- 
tion of  it  in  a  separate  issue. 

8  L.  c.,  pp.  xi-xrn. 

9  To  quote  one  example,  in  108  A. p.,  the  K'iang  (Tibetans)  with  a  force  of  over 
ten  thousand  men  attacked  the  watch-towers  near  Kan-chou  fu  in  Kan-su  Province, 
and  killed  or  captured  the  officers  and  privates  occupying  them  (CHAVANNES,  T'oung 
Pao,  1906,  p.  257).     Beacon-towers  in  which  lookout  soldiers  were  kept,  tun  t'ai 
(No.  12,205),  were  still  in  existence  under  the  Ming  dynasty,  and  are  well  described 
by  Persian  travellers  in  the  fifteenth  century  (see  BRETSCHNEIDER,  China  Review, 
Vol.  V,  p.  34).    Compare  Fig.  31. 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  HAN  PERIOD 


207 


2o8  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

representing  such  watch-towers ;  and  all  these,  according  to  the  unanimous 
testimony  of  the  Chinese,  have  been  found  in  graves  of  Kan-su  Province. 
The  conclusion  would  seem  justified  that  pottery  of  this  type  was  in- 
terred, as  worthy  emblems  of  their  martial  calling,  with  renowned  officers 
who  had  deserved  well  of  their  country  in  the  frontier  wars  and  had 
died  the  honorable  death  of  the  soldier.  On  Plate  XIX  is  illustrated 
a  green-glazed  model  of  a  three-storied  watch-tower  rising  from  the 
bottom  of  a  round  bowl:  on  the  two  parapets  and  roofs  the  sentinels 
are  engaged  in  showering  from  their  crossbows  a  volley  of  darts  on  an 
advancing  column  of  scouts.1  Here  we  enjoy  seeing  before  us  in  action 
the  undaunted  heroes  of  the  Hunnic  wars  whose  sentiments  were  im- 
mortalized by  Li  Po.  The  imposing  loftiness  of  the  structure  standing 
with  the  force  of  a  pyramid,  the  beautiful  architectural  forms,  the  jutting 
wooden  beams  supporting  the  corners  of  the  parapets,  are  notable  fea- 
tures making  this  bit  of  clay  a  live  and  unique  document  of  the  culture 
of  the  Han  period. 

There  are  also  less  elaborate  pottery  models  of  such  watch-towers. 
One  in  the  Museum  collection 2  shows  a  single  story  with  windows  on 
three  sides  and  a  door  ajar  in  the  front  wall;  the  windows  are  provided 
with  elegant  lattice-work.  Another  specimen3  represents  the  section 
of  a  city-wall  with  a  roofed,  square  tower  in  the  corner,  to  which  a  stair- 
case leads  up. 

The  most  signal  fact  about  defensive  armor  under  the  Han  is  that 
metal  suits  gradually  made  their  way  during  this  period.  We  meet,  for 
the  designation  of  it,  a  new  word  k'ai  (No.  5798),  written  with  a  charac- 
ter in  which  the  classifier  kin  ("copper"  4  or  "metal")  enters,  and  which 
does  not  occur  in  the  ancient  canonical  texts.  From  the  terminology 
of  the  dictionary  Shuo  wBn  (around  100  A.D.)  we  gather  that  armature 
had  then  grown  more  complete,  that  there  were  metal  helmets  (tou  mou) , 
brassards  (han),6  and  metal  protectors  for  the  nape  (ya-hia).6  The  old 


1  This  beautiful  piece  of  Han  pottery  is  in  the  collection  of  Mr.  Charles  L.  Freer 
of  Detroit,  to  whom  I  am  greatly  indebted  for  the  photograph  and  his  kind  permis- 
sion to  publish  it.    The  object  was  acquired  by  Mr.  Freer  as  early  as  in  the  seventies, 
and  is  the  first  specimen  of  Han  pottery  that  came  to  America;  presumably  it  was 
even  the  first  to  come  out  of  China. 

2  Cat.  No.  118,489;  27.5  cm  high,  green  glaze  decomposed  into  silver  oxidation. 
1  Cat.  No.  120,901 ;  gray  clay,  unglazed;  excavated  by  Dr.  Buckens,  physician  in 

the  service  of  the  Peking-Hankow  Railway,  near  ChSng-chou,  Ho-nan  Province. 

4  "Copper"  is  probably  the  original  meaning,  but  not,  as  supposed  formerly, 
"gold."  In  the  Chou  li  gold  is  always  designated  huang  kin  ("yellow  metal"). 

6  GILES  (No.  3791)  translates  "greaves;  leg-guards  for  soldiers,"  which  is  doubt- 
less also  correct;  but  the  definition  of  this  word  in  the  Shuo  w£n  is  pei  k'ai;  that  is, 
arm-guards. 

•See  COUVREUR,  Dictionnaire  chinois-francais,  p.  115  b  (also  in  PALLADIUS, 
Chinese-Russian  Dictionary).  Compare  Chinese  text  opposite. 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  HAN  PERIOD 


209 


word  han  (p.  175)  was  now  likewise  connected  with  the  classifier  "metal " 
(No.  3816);  and  an  entirely  new  word  ye  (No.  12,996),  composed  of  the 
phonetic  element  ye  ("leaf")  and  the  same  classifier,  springs  up  to 
denote  a  new  contrivance  in  the  structure  of  protective  armor, —  a 
metal  lamina  (literally  "metal  leaf").  These  facts  combined  go  to 
prove  that  far-reaching  innovations  had  set  in  after  the  close  of  the 


Chou  dynasty,  and  that  the  Han  period  must  have  revolutionized  the 
entire  method  and  technics  of  armature.  Ch&ng  K'ang-ch'fing,  the 
famous  commentator  of  the  Chou  li,  who  lived  in  the  second  century 
A.D.,  says  anent  the  armorers  of  the  Chou  time1  that  the  ancients  em- 
ployed hide  in  the  manufacture  of  corselets  (kid) ,  but  that  now  (in  the 
author's  time)  metal  (kin)  was  utilized  for  the  same  purpose,  and  that 
this  product  is  designated  k'ai.  Of  what  metal  was  this  new  armor 
made?  And  what  type  of  armor  was  represented  by  it?  The  most 
interesting  contribution  to  this  question  is  made  by  Chung  Ch'ang-t'ung, 

»  BIOT,  Chou  li,  Vol.  II,  p.  152. 


2io  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

an  author  who  lived  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century  A.D.,  and  who 
is  known  as  the  editor  of  the  Taoist  writer  Yin  WSn-tse.1  He  is  quoted 
as  follows  in  the  Yen  fan  lu:2  "In  days  of  old,  war-chariots  were  em- 
ployed in  warfare,  and  the  fashion  of  iron  plates  was  not  yet  in  use  for 
armor;  at  the  present  time,  hide  armor,  though  it  can  still  offer  sufficient 
resistance  to  a  crossbow,  will  needs  lead  to  the  loss  of  the  army  and  the 
destruction  of  the  empire.  Regarding  this  matter,  it  was  at  the  time 
of  the  Posterior  Han  (25-220  A.D.)  that  armor  received  iron  laminae, 
but  it  is  not  known  what  the  state  of  affairs  was  at  the  time  of  the 
Anterior  Han  (B.C.  206-23)."  Here  it  is  plainly  expressed  that  iron 
armor  came  up  under  the  Later  Han  dynasty,  and  the  expression  fie  cha? 
leaves  no  doubt  that  it  was  armor  composed  of  iron  laminae. 

In  this  connection  another  notice  incorporated  in  Ko  chi  king  yuan 
(Ch.  41,  p.  i  b)  would  be  of  interest,  if  any  dependence  could  be  placed 
as  to  the  value  and  the  time  of  the  source  from  which  it  is  quoted. 
This  is  a  work  called  "Dissertation  on  Corporal  Punishments"  (Jou 
king  luri)  by  K'ung  Jung,  a  descendant  of  Confucius  in  the  twentieth 
degree,  who,  according  to  GILES,*  died  in  208  A.D.  Nothing  is  known 
to  me  regarding  this  work;  M.  PELLIOT,  in  his  careful  bibliographical 
study  of  Chinese  law,6  does  not  mention  it.  In  the  present  case,  it 
would  be  indispensable  to  know  exactly  when  that  work  was  composed, 
as  the  author  lays  stress  on  a  contemporaneous  event,  and  to  ascertain 
whether  the  incriminated  passage  was  really  contained  in  the  original 


1  WYLIE,  Notes  on  Chinese  Literature,  p.  156;  L.  WIEGER,  Taoisme,  Vol.  I,  Le 
canon,  p.  184,  No.  1159. 

2  Completed  in  1175  by  Ch'Sng  Ta-ch'ang  (WYLIE,  Notes  on  Chinese  Literature, 
p.  1 60)  and  reprinted  in  the  T'ang  Sung  ts'ung  shu. 

1  The  word  cha  (No.  127)  refers  to  the  wooden  or  bamboo  tablets  used  for  writing 
and  united  into  bundles  of  books  before  the  invention  of  paper.  The  discoveries  in 
Central  Asia  have  rendered  us  familiar  with  the  form  of  these  wooden  documents. 
The  plates,  as  used  in  the  manufacture  of  armor,  have  indeed  a  very  similar  shape; 
and  hence  the  transfer  of  the  name  of  the  latter  is  easy  to  understand.  COUVREUR 
(p.  736  b)  translates  cha  by  "  les  couches  de  cuir  ou  les  plaques  de  me'tal  qui  composent 
une  armure;"  PALLADIUS  in  his  Chinese-Russian  Dictionary  (Vol.  II,  p.  379)  by 
"fish-scale,  armor;"  GILES  gives  the  meaning  "a  layer"  and  "numerative  of  kia, 
armor."  There  are  some  passages  in  the  Tso  chuan  and  Han  shi  wai  chuan  (see  P'ei 
wdn  yunfu,  Ch.  97,  p.  6)  where  cha  doubtless  relates  to  the  different  layers  of  a  hide 
armor;  but  as  a  rule  it  originally  refers,  as  stated  above  (p.  196),  to  the  scales  of  a  hide 
scale  armor.  This  is  also  the  opinion  of  K'ung  Ying-ta  (574-648),  who,  in  his  work 
Shang  shu  chSng  i,  gives  the  following  definition  of  the  word  ye  (No.  12,996), — 
"metal  lamina  or  plate  in  armor;  the  metal  lamina  of  armor  is  the  same  as  that  is 
called  cha  in  the  K'ao  kung  chi  (in  the  Chou  /i)-"  The  word  cha,  however,  does  not 
occur  in  the  text  of  the  Chou  li,  but  only  in  the  commentaries.  In  the  same  sense, 
the  K'ang-hi  Dictionary  defines  the  word  cha  as  kia  ye,  "armor  leaves,"  that  is, 
plates  or  laminae  covering  the  armor. 

4  Biographical  Dictionary,  p.  40 1^. 

8  Le  droit  chinois  (Bulletin  de  I'Ecole  franf aise  d' Extreme-Orient,  Vol.  IX,  1909,. 
pp.  27-56). 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  HAN  PERIOD  211 

edition.  Not  being  able  to  do  so,  I  can  give  it  only  with  all  reserve: 
"The  holy  men  of  antiquity  made  armor  of  rhinoceros-hide;  now  the 
pdn  ling1  have  iron  armor." 

The  fact  that  the  word  k'ai,  and  the  new  type  of  body  armor  under- 
stood by  it,  were  actually  employed  during  the  Han  period,  is  now 
obviously  brought  out  by  the  contemporaneous  wooden  slips  discovered 
in  eastern  Turkistan,  and  which  have  been  edited  and  translated  by  E. 
CnAVANNES.2  As  already  mentioned,  the  word  k'ai  occurs  there  on  two 
of  the  wooden  documents  (Nos.  758,  794);  while  the  ancient  word  kia 
is  preserved  in  three  other  cases.  Both  types,  kia  and  k'ai,  accordingly, 
were  in  use  among  the  outlying  Chinese  garrisons  of  the  Han  period; 
and  as  explicitly  recognized  by  Chinese  authors,  the  k'ai  differed  from 
the  kia  in  the  essential  point  that  they  were  reinforced  by  metal  pieces. 
The  foundation  of  the  armor  k'ai  consisted  likewise  of  leather  or  hide; 
and  in  CHAVANNES'  document  No.  794  the  question  is  of  "four  pieces 
of  hide,  two  halves  being  so  connected  as  to  make  two  suits  of  armor." 
The  "halves"  seem  to  refer  to  two  large  pieces  of  hide  covering  chest 
and  back. 

The  metal  helmet  appearing  under  the  Han  and  perhaps  under  the 
Ts'in  dynasty  (p.  175)  is  the  natural  accompaniment  of  metal  armor;  the 
galea  of  ancient  times  gives  way  to  the  cassis  (Figs.  32,  33).  The  word 
ton  mou  for  the  metal  helmet  mentioned  above  appears,  indeed,  on  one 
of  the  contemporaneous  wooden  slips  of  the  Tsin  dynasty  (265-313).* 

If  the  metal  of  the  Later  Han  dynasty  was  iron,  —  what  was  the 
metal  employed  during  the  Former  Han  dynasty?  And  what  was  the 
shape  of  the  metal  pieces  attached  to  the  hide  foundation? 

It  is  not  very  likely,  for  technical  reasons,  that  hide  armor  was  im- 
mediately followed  by  armor  consisting  of  iron  laminae.  The  latter 
denotes  a  much  more  advanced  stage  of  civilization,  and  presupposes 
acquaintance  with  the  art  of  forging  iron;  it  is  also  a  much  more 
complicated  structure,  its  manufacture  requiring  a  skill  far  superior 
to  the  more  mechanical  mode  of  preparing  a  coat  of  hide.  We  are 
fortunately  in  a  position  to  show  from  both  literary  and  archaeological 
evidence  that  iron  hide  armor  was  preceded  by  copper  hide  armor.  In 
the  work  Yen  fan  lu  quoted  above,  the  observation  is  made  that  "in 
the  times  of  remote  antiquity  and  in  the  period  anterior  to  the  Ts'in 
and  the  Han  leather  armor  named  after  the  rhinoceros  was  much  used 
in  the  army,  but  that  in  the  records  of  Se-ma  Ts'ien's  Shi  ki  mention 

1  Apparently  the  title  of  a  military  office  at  the  time  of  the  Han  dynasty. 
1  Les  documents  chinois  de"couverts  par  Aurel  Stein  dans  les  sables  du  Turkestan 
oriental  (Oxford,  1913). 

1  CHAVANNES,  /.  c.,  No.  794. 


212 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


is  made  of  armor  fabricated  from  forged  copper  (tuan  kin  wei  kia) ;  that, 
however,  on  close  examination,  the  employment  of  the  latter  is  still 
much  restricted."  1 

We  shall  not  be  far  wrong  in  concluding  that  the  metal  pieces  em- 
ployed for  the  reinforcement  of  armor  in  the  period  of  the  Anterior 


FIG.  32. 

Sketches  of  Helmets  (from  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'tttg  which  reproduced  them  from  Wu  pet  chi), 
representing  the  Tradition  of  the  Ming  Period. 


1  The  expression  "to  forge  defensive  armor"  (tuan  kia)  occurs  in  Shi  ki,  Ch.  112, 
in  the  biography  of  Chu-fu  Yen  (compare  P'ei  iv&n  yunfu,  Ch.  106,  p.  56  b).  In  the 
age  of  the  Three  Kingdoms  (221-277)  metal  armor,  for  which  copper  or  iron  was 
utilized,  was  firmly  established,  as  we  see  from  the  life  of  the  famous  General  Chu-ko 
Liang  (San  kuo  chi,  Wu  chi,  Ch.  19,  p.  I  b),  who  lived  from  181  to  234  (see  GILES, 
Biographical  Dictionary,  p.  180).  In  Tsin  shu  and  Sung  shu,  metal  armor  is  fre- 
quently mentioned.  An  iron  mask  (t'ie  mien)  for  the  protection  of  the  face  is  first 
mentioned  as  being  employed  in  the  period  Yung-kia  (307-313  A.D.)  by  General 
Chu  Ts'e  (styled  Chung-w£n)  in  the  battle  of  Hia-k'ou,  in  Han-yang  fu,  Hu-pei 
Province  (Tsin  shu,  Ch.  81,  p.  6). 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  HAN  PERIOD  213 

Han  were  of  that  metal  then  most  generally  employed, — copper.  And 
a  number  of  perforated,  thin  copper  plates  exhumed  in  the  environment 
of  Si-ngan  fu  from  a  grave  of  that  epoch  tends  to  confirm  this  opinion. 
These  laminae,  some  of  which  are  sketched  in  Fig.  34,  can  but  have 
served  the  purpose  of  being  sewed  on  to  the  surface  of  a  cuirass.  They 
were  employed  for  the  making  of  a  k'ai,  and  formed  the  natural  continua- 


Fic.  33. 

Sketches  of  Helmets  (from  T"u  situ  tsi  ch'lng  which  reproduced  them  from  H'K  pet  cki), 
representing  the  Tradition  of  the  Ming  Period. 

tion  of  the  ancient  scale  armor  kiai  discussed  at  the  end  of  the  previous 
chapter.  The  scales  in  the  latter  were  cut  out  of  leather:  in  the  third 
and  second  centuries  B.C.,  the  Han  made  a  decided  advance  by  gradual- 
ly transforming  these  leather  into  copper  scales;  and  the  Posterior 
Han,  in  the  first  centuries  of  our  era,  went  a  step  farther  in  substituting 
iron  for  copper.  The  specimens  in  Fig.  34  demonstrate  that  the  copper 
pieces  leaned  in  their  forms  toward  scales,  though  they  approach  to  a 
higher  degree  the  shape  of  a  leaf  (hence  the  term  "leaf"  which  we  meet 
in  the  Han  authors).  A  slow  and  gradual  development  must  have  been 


214 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


in  operation  toward  effecting  that  uniform  oblong,  rectangular  shape 
which  we  are  wont  to  designate  as  "plate."  There  is,  for  lack  of 
monuments,  as  yet  no  means  of  exactly  ascertaining  the  date  when  this 
type  of  regular  iron  plate  armor  sprang  up  in  China.  The  term  fie  cha 
employed  by  Chung  Ch'ang-t'ung,  discussed  above,  is  very  tempting  in 
leading  us  to  assume  that  it  existed  at  least  toward  the  end  of  the 
Posterior  Han  period  in  the  third  century  A.D.  ;  the  word  cha  relates  to 
the  rectangular  wooden  writing-slips  still  prominent  in  the  administra- 
tive system  of  the  Han,  and  the  application  of  this  word  to  the  plates  of 


FIG.  34. 
Bronze  Scales  of  Armor  of  Han  Period  (half  of  actual  size). 

an  armor  is  most  happy.  As  these  wooden  slips  possessed  regular  forms, 
we  are  allowed  to  infer  that  also  the  iron  plates  in  the  armor  of  the  Han 
were  gradually  adapted  to  the  same  uniform  standard.  In  the  age  of 
the  T'ang  (618-906)  iron  plate  armor  presents  itself  as  an  accomplished 
fact,  and  was  made  with  a  technical  perfection  which  must  have  been 
preceded  by  centuries  of  diligent  and  intelligent  practice  (see  Chapter  V) . 
The  existence  of  protective  laminae  of  rectangular  shape  under  the 
Han  may  be  inferred  also  from  another  matter  peculiar  to  that  age.1 
In  the  biography  of  Ho  Kuang,  who  died  in  B.C.  68,  the  great  "king- 
maker" of  the  Han  dynasty,  as  Mayers  calls  him,  mention  is  made  of 
"jade  clothes"  (yii  «').  Yen  Shi-ku  (579-645),  the  famous  commentator 
of  the  Han  Annals,  explains  this  term  as  denoting  a  coat  of  the  form  of  an 
armor  (k'ai),  consisting  of  jade  slabs  joined  together  by  means  of  gold 
threads;  these  jade  slabs  were  shaped  into  regular  plates  (cha),  one  foot 
long  and  two  inches  and  a  half  wide ;  they  formed  a  perfect  enclosure,  and 
reached  down  to  the  feet.  Another  style  of  this  garment,  compared 
likewise  with  armor  by  Yen  Shi-ku,  was  composed  of  strung  pearls  or 

1  The  following  information  is  drawn  from  the  Han  tsien  (No.  1648)  of  Kua  Ts'ang- 
lin  of  the  Sung;  the  edition  before  me  is  by  Wu  Ki-ngan  of  the  Ming,  and  was  pub- 
lished in  1600.  This  is  a  most  valuable  work  for  the  study  of  Han  culture,  being  ar- 
ranged in  the  form  of  a  glossary  of  subject-matters  (corresponding  to  our  archaeologi- 
cal dictionaries)  extracted  from  the  Han  Annals  together  with  the  commentaries; 
it  allows  us  to  ascertain  at  a  glance  what  objects  of  culture  existed  under  the  Han. 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  HAN  PERIOD  215 

beads  in  the  upper  part,  while  only  the  skirt  was  formed  by  jade  plates. 
It  is  self-evident  that  these  jade  plates,  of  which  we  hear  nothing  at 
any  earlier  period,  were  produced  in  imitation  of  metal  armor-plates; 
and  Yen  Shi-ku's  simile  with  an  armor  strongly  supports  this  opinion. 

By  what  factor  was  the  innovation  and  progress  of  the  Han  in  mat- 
ters of  defensive  armor  caused?  The  development  of  the  defence  of  the 
body  moves  along  as  the  natural  consequence  of  the  advance  in  weapons 
of  offense.  "The  history  of  invention  as  applied  to  war  has  been  the 
record  of  alternate  advances  in  this  line,  and  in  overcoming  defence."  l 
The  steadily  growing  perfection  of  weapons  necessitated  a  corresponding 
increase  in  the  efficiency  and  power  of  resistance  of  body  armor.  The 
chief  weapons  of  the  Chou  period  were  spear  and  bow;  and  the  armor  of 
rhinoceros-hide  offered  to  them  adequate  opposition.  In  the  age  of 
the  Han  we  meet  the  more  effectual  crossbow  and  the  two-edged  sword; 
and  Chung  Ch'ang-t'ung  justly  says  that  hide  armor  then  was  no  longer 
a  suitable  shelter  for  the  arrows  shot  from  crossbows,  if  the  interests  of  an 
army  were  to  be  maintained.  The  copper  or  bronze  swords  in  vogue 
among  the  Former  Han  dynasty  gradually  gave  way  to  iron  swords 
under  the  Later  Han  dynasty;  and  parallel  with  this  movement,  we 
notice  a  logical  development  from  plain  hide  and  hide  scale  armor 
to  copper  scale  and  iron  scale,  and  ultimately  to  iron  plate  armor. 
Thus,  judging  from  appearances,  it  may  be  conceived  that  this 
sequence  in  the  gradual  perfection  of  armor  might  have  been  evolved 
from  purely  inward  causes  and  necessities,  and  that  no  factors  of  any 
outward  influence  need  be  invoked  in  order  to  account  for  it;  but 
such  a  conclusion  hazarded  without  any  regard  to  historical  agencies 
would  be  plainly  illusory. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  an  entirely  different  point  of  view  may  be 
pursued  in  this  problem.  It  may  be  argued  that  the  Chinese,  despite 
the  numerous  aggressive  and  defensive  wars  which  they  have  made 
on  the  adjoining  tribes,  cannot  be  called,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word, 
a  warlike  nation,  and  that  they  were  always  deficient  in  inventions  of 
military  implements.  At  all  times  they  were  ready  to  adopt  any 
superior  arms  from  their  more  belligerent  neighbors,  and  to  vanquish 
their  enemies  with  their  enemies'  devices.  The  crossbow  is  properly 
claimed  as  a  contrivance  of  the  aboriginal  tribes  of  southern  China;  and 
the  type  of  the  short  bronze  sword  of  the  early  Han  (see  Plate  XX) 
bears  such  a  striking  similarity  to  that  of  the  Siberian  bronze  age,  that 
imitation  due  to  historical  contact  may  justly  be  suspected.  Under 
the  Han,  cast-bronze  swords  (Plate  XX)  gradually  gave  way  to 

1  O.  T.  MASON,  The  Origins  of  Invention,  p.  389. 


216  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

cast-iron  swords  (Plate  XXI),  the  latter  being  cast  in  the  same  shape  as 
the  former.  The  process  of  transformation  is  identical  with  the  one  that 
we  observe  in  the  antiquities  of  Siberia.  The  excellent  plates  of  ancient 
Siberian  bronze  and  iron  swords  published  by  W.  RADLOFF,*  in  which 
bronze  is  colored  green  and  iron  brown,  afford  a  good  object-lesson  for 
the  study  of  the  gradual  transition  from  bronze  to  iron:  here,  for 
instance,  we  note  that  the  hilt  is  changed  into  iron,  whereas  bronze  is 
retained  for  the  blade  (Plate  XII,  No.  4) ;  or  that  the  blades  become  iron, 
and  the  hilts  remain  of  bronze  (Plate  XIII,  Nos.  1-3),  until  ultimately 
there  spring  up  types  purely  of  iron  which  faithfully  preserve  the  forms 
and  ornaments  of  the  more  ancient  bronze  swords.  We  know  from 
literary  documents  that  the  Han  still  turned  out  weapons  of  bronze, 
that  under  the  Former  Han  the  latter  were  gradually  superseded  by  iron 
weapons,  and  that  these  were  definitely  established  under  the  Later 
Han:  the  year  219  may  safely  be  regarded  as  the  term  when  weapons 
were  made  exclusively  from  iron,  and  when  bronze  was  discarded  for 
this  purpose.2  It  will  therefore  be  in  general  correct  to  assume  for 
archaeological  purposes  that  bronze  swords  bearing  the  characteristics 
of  the  Han,  with  greater  probability  belong  to  the  period  of  the  Former 
Han  dynasty  (B.C.  206-23),  while  cast-iron  swords  of  the  same  features 
most  probably  range  in  the  period  of  the  Later  Han  dynasty  (25-220 
A.D.).  The  casting  of  iron  for  implements  of  every-day  use  is  peculiar 
to  that  age:  the  Chinese  then  ingeniously  applied  to  iron  the  same  pro- 
cess as  formerly  to  bronze,  casting  it  in  sand  moulds,  and  perpetuating 
in  the  new  material  their  ancient  bronze  forms.  Thus  we  have  large 
bulging  vases  (of  the  type  styled  hu)  with  movable  lateral  rings  and 
inscriptions  in  Han  style  cast  in  high  relief  on  the  exterior  of  the  bot- 
tom,3—  of  the  same  shape  as  the  corresponding  vases  in  bronze  and  pot- 
tery. There  are,  further,  stoves,  large  cooking-kettles,  cooking-pans, 
coin-moulds,  bells,  lamps,  chisels,  knives,  and  mountings  for  chariot 
wheel-naves, —  in  style  and  decoration  breathing  the  spirit  of  Han 
culture,  and  the  complete  decomposition  of  the  thick  iron  core  testifying 
to  their  great  antiquity.  The  cast-iron  spears  shown  on  Plate  XXI, 
owing  to  the  decay  of  the  iron  substance  underground,  have  almost  lost 
their  original  forms.  The  swords  are  in  a  somewhat  better  state  of 
preservation.  They  are  two-edged,  like  the  older  bronze  prototypes, 


1  Siberian  Antiquities  (Materials  toward  the  Archceology  of  Russia,  No.  5,  in  Rus- 
sian, St.  Petersburg,  1891). 

1  See  the  interesting  observations  of  F.  HIRTH  (Chinesische  Ansichten  uber  Bron- 
zetrommeln,  pp.  18-22,  and  The  Ancient  History  of  China,  pp.  234-237). 

1  It  is  the  well-known  formula  i  hou  wang  ("may  it  be  serviceable  to  the  lords!")- 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  HAN  PERIOD  217 

with  massive  iron  hilts,  but  with  lozenge-shaped  guards  of  bronze 
coated  with  a  dark  and  polished  patina. 

We  are  now  confronted  with  the  fact  that  the  Han  period  has  run 
through  the  same  phase  of  development  with  regard  to  offensive  and 
defensive  armor.  It  is  therefore  inevitable  to  conclude  that  a  correlation 
exists  between  these  two  developments,  and  that  the  production  of 
defensive  iron  armor  under  the  Posterior  Han  is  prompted  by  the  coeval 
coming  into  existence  of  iron  weapons.  The  two  phenomena  are  in 
mutual  proportions.  In  the  same  manner,  the  perfection  of  bronze 
arms  under  the  Anterior  Han  must  have  resulted  in  the  machination 
of  bronze  protective  armor.  The  same  causes  bring  about  the  same 
effects;  and  if  the  agencies  of  the  cause,  the  weapons,  are  suspected 
with  good  evidence  of  foreign  origin,  the  same  suspicion  is  equally  ripe 
for  the  effects  —  defensive  armor.  The  one  is  inconceivable  without 
the  other.  In  the  ancient  Siberian  swords  we  meet  the  same  process  of 
development  from  bronze  to  iron  as  in  ancient  China,  and  this  paral- 
lelism plainly  reveals  the  historical  interrelation  of  the  two  culture 
groups.  This  being  the  case,  the  further  supposition  is  justifiable  that 
also  the  progress  made  under  the  Han  in  body  armor  might  be  due  to 
an  impetus  received  from  the  same  quarter.  At  this  point  due  attention 
must  be  paid  to  the  great  historical  connections  linking  all  Asia  in  mat- 
ters of  military  art.  No  human  invention  or  activity  can  be  properly 
understood  if  viewed  merely  as  an  isolated  phenomenon,  with  utter 
disregard  of  the  causal  factors  to  which  it  is  inextricably  chained. 
Every  cultural  idea  bears  its  distinct  relation  to  a  series  of  others,  and 
this  reciprocity  and  interdependence  of  phenomena  must  be  visualized 
in  determining  its  historical  position.  The  development  of  harness 
must  be  viewed  in  close  connection  with  the  mode  of  military  tactics, 
the  science  of  warfare:  every  progressive  step  advanced  in  the  latter 
draws  a  natural  reaction  on  the  form  of  armament,  and  a  transformation 
of  the  latter  is  a  sure  sign  of  the  fact  that  a  considerable  change  in  tactical 
conduct  has  preceded  it.  It  is  therefore  from  the  history  of  tactics 
that  we  must  derive  our  understanding  of  the  technique  of  armor. 
The  problem  now  set  before  us  is, —  What  great  movement  in  military- 
tactics  caused  the  radical  transformation  of  arms  experienced  by  the 
peoples  of  China,  Central  Asia,  and  Siberia  around  the  centuries  of  our 
era?  This  movement,  in  my  opinion,  proceeded  from  ancient  Iran. 
I  shall  endeavor  to  demonstrate  that  far-reaching  tactical  reforms  were 
launched  in  Iran  and  deeply  affected  the  entire  ancient  world,  and  that 
these  innovations  spread  from  Iran  to  the  Turkish  tribes  of  Central 
Asia,  and  were  handed  on  by  the  latter  to  the  Chinese.  Developments  of 
tactics  and  armature  moved  along  very  similar  lines  in  the  three  groups. 


218  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

First  of  all,  attention  should  be  called  to  the  fact  (and  this  cannot  be 
an  accident)  that  the  new  parts  of  the  armor  added  in  China  during  the 
Han  period  are  exactly  those  which  we  find  in  ancient  Persia.  The 
nape-guard  (ya-hia)1  meets  its  counterpart  in  the  kuiris  named  in  the 
Avesta,  rendered  in  the  Pahlavi  version  grivpan  ("neck-guard")  and 
explained  by  the  gloss,  "attached  behind  from  the  helmet  to  the  corse- 
let." 2  The  Avesta  mentions  also  leg-guards, rdnapdno  ("thigh-protec- 
tor") which  are  interpreted  as  greaves;  and  according  to  JACKSON,  the 
helmet  is  described  in  the  Avesta  as  made  of  iron,  brass,  or  gold.* 
Likewise  the  new  mode  of  fighting  prevailing  in  the  Han  period  — 
the  use  of  the  sword  in  connection  with  shield  and  armor  —  is  paralleled 
in  Persia  when  we  read  in  XENOPHON'S  Cyrop&dia  (II,  i,  21)  that 
Cyrus,  in  training  his  men,  relieved  them  from  practice  with  the  bow 
and  the  javelin,  and  exercised  them  in  but  one  direction,  to  fight  with 
sword,  shield,  and  armor.4 

Further,  it  is  essential  to  grasp  the  fundamental  fact  of  the  difference 
between  mounted  archers  and  true  cavalry,  and  the  development  of 
these  two  different  arms  and  means  of  tactics  among  the  Iranians. 
HERODOTUS  (VII,  84)  states  that  the  Persian  horsemen  were  equipped 
in  the  same  manner  as  the  infantry,  except  that  some  of  them  wore  upon 
their  heads  devices  wrought  of  brass  and  steel.  Accordingly,  the 
Persian  cavalrymen  of  that  time  must  be  credited  with  the  wearing  of 
sleeved  tunics  of  diverse  colors,  bedecked  with  breastplates  of  iron 
scales  like  fish-scales,  as  attributed  by  HERODOTUXS  (VII,  61)  to  the 
infantry.  The  description  of  Herodotus  (IX,  49)  leaves  no  doubt  that 
the  Persian  horsemen  fighting  the  Greeks  were  only  a  body  of  infantry 
mounted  on  horses  and  chiefly  depending  upon  their  bows,  at  which 
Herodotus  expresses  astonishment  by  remarking  that,  though  horsemen, 
they  used  the  bow;  they  were,  accordingly,  mounted  archers. 

This  mode  of  fighting  was  spread  over  the  entire  Scythian  and 
Iranian  world.  The  Scythians  shot  with  bow  and  arrow  from  horse- 
back (HERODOTUS,  IV,  131),  and  singly  skirmished  in  open  order 
against  their  opponents,  attacking  them  here  and  there  where  chance  or 
advantage  offered;  they  were  at  the  same  time  nowhere  and  ubiquitous, 
effectually  screening  their  operations.  The  Massagetae  (HERODOTUS,  I, 

T~ 

1  A  Chinese  word  suspicious  of  foreign  origin. 

*  A.  V.  W.  JACKSON,  Ancient  Persian  Armor  (in  Classical  Studies  in  Honor  of 
Henry  Drisler,  p.  118,  New  York,  1894). 

1  Ibid.,  p.  119.  The  greaves  are  mentioned  also  by  XENOPHON  (Anabasis,  vm, 
6) ;  HERODOTUS  (vn,  84)  ascribes  brass  and  steel  helmets  to  the  Persian  cavalry  men; 
XENOPHON  (Cyropcedia,  vi,  1,2)  speaks  of  brazen  helmets,  and  in  one  case  (vi,  4,  2) 
of  a  golden  helmet. 

4  Compare  also  Cyropadia,  I,  2,  12. 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  HAN  PERIOD  219 

215)  were  familiar  with  the  mode  of  fighting  both  on  horseback  and  on 
foot,  which  indicates  that  when  in  the  saddle  they  were  mounted  foot- 
men. The  Parthian  mounted  archers  were  dreaded  and  detested  by  the 
Romans,  chiefly  because  in  taking  to  flight  they  shot  their  arrows  back- 
ward at  the  pursuing  enemy.1  The  Mongols,  during  their  invasions, 
availed  themselves  of  the  same  mode  of  tactics.  "  In  battle  they  with- 
draw in  good  order,  as  soon  as  they  are  at  a  disadvantage, "  says  the  Ar- 
menian historian  Haithon,  "but  it  is  very  dangerous  to  pursue  them,  as, 
though  turning  back,  they  are  able  to  shoot  during  the  flight,  and  thus 
wound  men  and  horses." 

According  to  XENOPHON  (Anabasis,  VIII,  6,  7),  there  were  around 
Cyrus  about  six  hundred  cavalry,  the  men  all  armed  with  breastplates, 
greaves,  and  helmets,  except  Cyrus,  who  presented  himself  for  battle 
with  his  head  unprotected  ;2  and  all  the  horses  of  the  cavalry  that  were 
with  Cyrus  had  defensive  armor  on  the  forehead  and  breast.  Here, 
then,  for  the  first  time  is  the  question  of  real  cavalry;  horse  and  man 
being  completely  armored,  and  this  new  equipment  being  a  sign  of  a  new 
mode  of  tactics,  while  in  the  age  of  Herodotus  the  horse  of  the  Persians 
was  not  yet  caparisoned.8  Though  the  term  "  cataphracti "  is  not  used 
by  Xenophon,  the  institution  described  by  him  is  either  the  forerunner 
of  the  latter  or  identical  with  them. 

In  Cyropadia  (VI,  4,  i),  besides  the  frontlets  and  breastplates  of 
the  horses,  single  horses  with  greaves,  and  chariot  horses  with  plates 
upon  their  sides  are  mentioned;  so  that  the  whole  army  glittered  with 
brass,  and  shone  with  purple  garments.  Abradatas  equipped  the  horses 
of  his  chariot  with  brazen  mail  (ibid.,  VI,  i,  51).*  In  the  same  work 
(VII,  i,  2)  it  is  on  record  that  all  those  who  were  with  Cyrus  were  fur- 
nished with  the  same  equipment  as  himself;  purple  coats,  brazen  armor, 
brazen  helmets,  white  crests,  short  swords,  and  each  with  a  spear  made 
of  the  timber  of  the  corneil-tree.  Their  horses  were  armed  with  brazen 
forehead-pieces,  breastplates,  and  shoulder-pieces  which  simultaneously 
served  as  thigh-protectors  to  the  rider.  The  rider  allowed  his  feet  to 
hang  down  behind  these  flank-pieces  which  safeguarded  his  thighs. 

1  E.  BULANDA,  Bogen  und  Pfeil  bei  den  Vdlkern  des  Altertums,  p.  61  (Wien,  1913). 

1  On  the  armor  of  Cyrus  see  XENOPHON  (Cyropetdia,  I,  4,  18;  vn,  i,  2). 

1  The  Massagetse  (HERODOTUS,  i,  215),  who  in  their  costume  and  mode  of  living 
resembled  the  Scythians,  had  their  horses  caparisoned  with  breastplates  of  bronze, 
while  gold  was  utilized  for  the  bridles,  the  bit,  and  the  cheekplates.  The  fact  that 
the  horses  in  the  army  of  Xerxes  were  not  caparisoned  is  practically  demonstrated 
by  the  Nisaean  charger  of  the  Persian  noble  Masistius,  which  received  an  arrow  in  its 
flank  (HERODOTUS,  ix,  22).  Neither  were  the  horses  of  the  Assyrians  caparisoned, 
who  possessed  only  mounted  infantry,  not  cavalry  in  the  strict  sense. 

4  Compare  also  vi,  2,  17. 


220  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

Finally,  in  his  concluding  chapter  (VIII,  8,  22),  in  which  Xenophon 
laments  the  gradual  degeneracy  of  the  Persians  after  the  death  of  Cyrus, 
he  sums  up  again  by  saying  that  Cyrus,  after  breaking  them  of  the  habit 
of  skirmishing  at  a  distance,  armed  with  breastplates  both  men  and 
their  horses,  gave  every  one  a  javelin  in  his  hand,  and  trained  them  to 
close  righting;  but  now,  the  historian  complains,  they  neither  skirmish 
from  a  distance,  nor  do  they  engage  hand  in  hand.  In  this  passage  it  is 
clearly  stated  that  Cyrus  was  the  father  of  a  new  mode  of  tactics,  and 
that  this  method  was  exactly  what  we  understand  by  regular  cavalry 
in  the  modern  sense, —  horsemen  engaging  in  close  combat,  and  charging 
their  opponents  with  all  possible  speed  by  means  of  javelin,  spear, 
lance,  or  sabre.  The  Cyropadia,  of  course,  is  nothing  more  than  an 
historical  romance,  and  the  attribution  to  the  elder  Cyrus  of  the  new 
tactical  principle  is  plainly  an  anachronism;  it  must,  however,  have  been 
in  full  operation  among  the  Persians  in  Xenophon's  time.  It  cannot 
have  existed  under  Cyrus,  as  we  do  not  find  it  in  the  army  of  Xerxes 
invading  Greece. 

The  mail-clad  warriors  of  the  Persians  and  related  nations  became 
known  in  the  antique  world  under  the  name  cataphracti  (KaTappaKToi) 
or  catafractarii,  derived  from  cataphracta,  the  designation  of  their  de- 
fensive armor.  Sarmatians  clad  with  such  armor  are  represented  on  the 
Column  of  Trajan;  actual  fragments  of  armor  of  this  sort  discovered  in 
graves  of  southern  Russia,  and,  further,  the  notices  of  classical  authors, 
enable  us  to  form  some  idea  of  the  appearance  of  these  suits  of  armor.1 
They  consisted  of  a  foundation  of  cloth  or  leather,  to  which  scales  or 
laminae  of  metal  (copper  or  iron),  more  rarely  of  horn  or  bone,  were 
sewed  on  in  such  a  manner  that  the  single  rows  overlapped,  each  row 
covering  the  upper  part  of  the  row  immediately  below.  The  result, 
accordingly,  was  a  type  of  scale  armor  (cpoXi&oros),  the  details  in  the 
arrangement  of  which  naturally  escape  us.  It  was  singularly  flexible, 
provided  with  sleeves,  and  enveloping  the  entire  body  except  that  por- 
tion of  the  thighs  which  grips  the  horse.  It  was  well  adapted  to  the 
form  of  the  trunk,  and  permitted  the  soldier  ample  freedom  of  motion. 
The  horses  likewise  were  completely  armored  with  the  same  kind  of 
scales,  though  they  were  frequently  caparisoned  with  leather  only 
(AMMIANUS,  XXIV,  6),2  as  they  were  handicapped  by  the  weight  of  the 
metal.  The  man  had  to  be  lifted  on  his  horse.  He  was  equipped  with 
a  long  spear,  which  was  supported  by  a  chain  attached  to  the  horse's 
neck,  and  at  the  end  by  a  fastening  attached  to  the  horse's  thigh,  so  as 

1  Compare  the  excellent  article  of  E.  SAGLIO  in  Dictionnaire  des  antiquitfs  grecs 
et  remains,  Vol.  I,  p.  966. 

*  Operimentis  scorteis  equorum  multitudine  omni  defensa. 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  HAN  PERIOD  221 

to  get  the  full  force  of  the  animal's  weight  into  the  spear-thrust.1  At  a 
given  signal,  the  squadron  composed  of  such  horsemen  dashed  forth  for 
the  assault  of  the  enemy,  and  was  a  formidable  weapon  against  the 
infantry  armed  with  bows,  as  the  body  protection  rendered  the  horsemen 
arrow-proof.  There  were  also  cataphracti  armed  with  bows,  as  follows 
from  the  figure  of  such  a  cavalier  represented  on  the  Column  of  Trajan, 
and  shooting  backward.  It  is  clear  that  this  troop  could  be  efficient 
only  as  a  united  body  and  for  the  purpose  of  a  surprise  charge;  when 
successfully  repelled,  the  result  must  have  been  disastrous  to  the  clumsy 
horsemen.  The  single  ones  were  incapable  of  defending  themselves; 
and  we  hear  that  the  Gauls  who  accompanied  the  army  of  Crassus 
practised  the  stratagem  of  seizing  their  lances  and  pulling  them  off  the 
horses.  The  difference  in  principle  between  the  former  mounted 
bodies  of  archers  and  this  new  system  of  cavalry  is  obvious :  the  mounted 
infantry  soldier  was  an  individual,  and  as  such  an  independent  fighting- 
unit,  able  and  mobile  on  any  occasion,  be  it  charge,  enduring  battle,  or 
pursuit;  this  troop  did  not  advance  at  command  in  any  regular  align- 
ments, but  dispersed  in  open  order,  small  bands  suddenly  sallying  forth 
here  and  there,  and  as  swiftly  turning  round,  now  attacking,  then 
feigning  flight,  exhausting  their  opponents  in  pursuit,  then  rallying  and 
pushing  forward  again  till  the  contest  was  decided.  The  new  cavalry 
troop  was  a  machine  set  in  motion  by  the  will  and  word  of  a  single  com- 
mander. It  was  effective  as  long  as  the  body  preserved  the  agility  of  its 
members  and  worked  with  collective  action  as  an  undivided  unit.  Its 
success  was  bound  up  with  the  speed,  security,  and  force  of  its  assault; 
when  the  charge  failed,  its  case  was  lost. 

When  and  by  whom  this  new  mode  of  tactics  was  invented  is  un- 
known. We  have  seen  that  it  existed  in  Persia  at  the  time  of  Xenophon, 
and  the  idea  seems  to  have  indeed  originated  among  Iranians.  Sub- 
sequently we  find  it  in  the  army  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes;  and  from  the 
time  of  Antoninus  Pius  it  became  common  in  the  armies  of  the  Romans, 
soldiers  of  this  description  being  frequently  mentioned  in  inscriptions 
of  that  period.  Thus  we  see  the  Romans  adopt  the  strategy  of  their 
adversaries, —  a  bit  of  history  which,  as  we  shall  see  presently,  repeats 
itself  in  China.  The  Iranian  mode  of  strategy  with  the  peculiar  body 
armor  for  man  and  horse  spread  likewise  to  the  Scythians  (see  p.  220), 
and  to  Siberia  as  far  as  the  Yenisei,  as  witnessed  by  the  famed  petro- 
glyph  of  a  mounted  lancer  equipped  with  plate  mail.  This  horseman  in- 
deed represents  a  cataphractus  (Fig.  35).  This  monument  may  be 

1  SMITH,  WAYTE,  and  MARINDIN,  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Antiquities, 
3d  ed.  (Vol.  I,  p.  384). 


222 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


roughly  dated  in  the  time  of  the  Siberian  iron  age,  and  is  surely  coeval 
with  the  period  of  Chinese-Turkish  relations  in  the  epoch  of  the  Han. 

In  fact,  the  Turkish  tribes  who  fought  the  Chinese  at  that  time  had 
undergone  a  similar  development  from  the  primitive  and  crude  warfare 
of  mounted  archers  to  the  principle  of  organized  cavalry,  like  their 
Iranian  neighbors;  and  the  Turks,  on  their  part,  were  duly  seconded  in 
this  respect  by  the  Chinese.  We  know  surely  enough  that  the  pri- 


FIG.  35. 

Mounted  Lancer  Clad  with  Plate  Mail,  Rock-Carving  on  the  Yenisei,  Siberia  (from  Inscriptions 
de  l'I6nissei,  Helsingfors,  1889). 

meval  Chinese  did  not  possess  cavalry,  and  that  their  battles  were  fought 
by  soldiers  on  foot  or  in  war-chariots  (p.  185).  We  know,  further,  that 
the  tactics  of  mounted  infantry  archers,  in  imitation  of  Turkish  practice, 
were  first  organized  in  China  by  King  Wu-ling  (B.C.  325-299)  of  Chao; 
that  he  introduced  the  narrow-waisted  and  tight-fitting  barbaric 
costume  among  his  subjects,  and  taught  them  shooting  with  the  bow 
while  on  horseback.1  Regular  cavalry,  we  see,  came  up  in  China  from 
under  the  Anterior  Han,  and  this  was  still  less  a  truly  Chinese  idea 
than  the  mounted  infantry.  It  was  adopted  from  the  Huns;  and  the 
Huns,  I  venture  to  assert,  —  though  this  impression  cannot  be  supported 
at  present  by  a  literary  document, —  had  learned  this  lesson  from  Ira- 
nians. There  is  no  escape  from  the  conclusion  that  historical  contact 
and  derivation  must  have  been  in  operation,  for  it  would  be  against  all 

1  See  the  writer's  Chinese  Pottery,  p.  216. 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  HAN  PERIOD  223 

reason  to  assume  that  both  the  Huns  and  the  Chinese  should  independ- 
ently have  run  through  the  same  stages  of  development  of  a  complex 
series  of  phenomena  as  the  Iranians  did  several  centuries  before  this 
period.  The  inward  identity  of  these  developments  on  the  three  sides, 
resulting  in  the  same  styles  of  body  armor  improved  by  the  utilization 
of  metal,  and  the  same  manner  of  fighting,  is  sufficient  proof  for  the  fact 
that  the  one  nation  successively  adopted  the  new  practice  from  the  other. 

It  would  be  beyond  the  scope  of  the  present  investigation  to  enter 
into  the  details  of  the  history  of  this  military  institution  in  China. 
China's  military  history  has  been  much  neglected,  though  it  offers  a 
wide  field  for  studies  of  great  culture-historical  interest.  Among  these, 
a  research  into  the  subject  of  cavalry  is  worthy  of  special  consideration. 
A  few  suggestive  remarks  may  here  be  offered.1 

The  Huns,  the  Hiung-nu  of  the  Chinese  Annals,  were  born  fighters, 
tribes  of  horsemen,  and  expert  archers.  According  to  the  picture  of  their 
life  drawn  by  Se-ma  Ts'ien,*  they  taught  their  children  to  practise 
riding  on  the  backs  of  sheep,  and  to  shoot  birds  and  rodents  with  bow 
and  arrow.  Qualification  in  archery  made  the  soldier,  "and  every 
soldier  strong  enough  to  bend  a  bow  was  a  cuirassed  horseman."  * 
This  plainly  indicates  that  the  soldiery  of  the  Huns  consisted  of  mounted 
archers  fighting  in  open  order  and  individually,  like  the  Scythians;  and 
the  historian  further  adds  that  their  offensive  weapon  for  distant  fight- 
ing was  the  bow  and  arrow,4  while  in  close  combat  they  employed  swords 
and  short  spears.  Whether  they  engaged  also  in  dismounted  combat,  we 
do  not  know.  When  Se-ma  Ts'ien  adds  that  they  were  not  ashamed  of 
flight,  this  is  duly  connected  with  their  mode  of  fighting,  as  set  forth 
above  (p.  218)  in  regard  to  Iranians  and  Scythians:6  their  flight  was  a 


1  An  interesting  work  giving  a  digest  of  the  military  affairs  of  the  Han  dynasty  is 
the  Pu  Han  ping  chi  (reprinted  in  Chi  pu  tsu  chai  ts'ung  shu). 

*Shiki,  Ch.  1 10,  p.  i  b. 

*  Thus  in  the  translation  of  E.  H.  PARKER  (China  Review,  Vol.  XX,  p.  i),  which 
seems  to  me  exact.  HIRTH  (Ancient  History  of  China,  p.  168)  translates,  "Having 
grown  to  become  soldiers,  they  would  thus  become  excellent  archers,  when  they  were 
all  supplied  with  armor  on  horseback."  This,  though  generally  rendering  the  sense 
of  the  passage,  is  hardly  in  Se-ma  Ts'ien's  text;  at  any  rate,  the  words  kia  ki  cannot 
be  separated,  but  form  a  technical  term,  "a  horseman  clad  with  hide  armor."  The 
word  kia  in  Se-ma  Ts'ien  invariably  refers  to  hide  armor  or  cuirass,  not  to  metal  ar- 
mor, which  is  k'ai, 

4  As  swift  and  mounted  archers  the  Huns  appeared  in  Europe  (motibus  expediti, 
et  ad  equitandum  promptissimi :  scapulis  latis,  et  ad  arcus  sagittasque  parati. 
JORNANDES,  xxi v),  as  did  the  Mongols  at  a  later  date. 

1  MARCO  POLO  (ed.  of  YULE  and  CORDIER,  Vol.  I,  p.  262)  very  aptly  says  in  re- 
gard to  the  Mongols,  "As  they  do  not  count  it  any  shame  to  run  away  in  battle,  they 
will  sometimes  pretend  to  do  so,  and  in  running  away  they  turn  in  the  saddle  and 
shoot  hard  and  strong  at  the  foe,  and  in  this  way  make  great  havoc.  Their  horses 
are  trained  so  perfectly  that  they  will  double  hither  and  thither,  just  like  a  dog,  in 


224  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

sham-flight  to  deceive  and  exhaust  their  opponents,  and  they  did  not 
fail  during  this  manoeuvre  of  retreat  to  send  their  arrows  backward. 
Their  cuirass  (kia)  was  of  leather  obtained  from  the  skins  of  their 
domestic  animals,  from  which  also  their  ordinary  clothing  was  prepared; 
in  addition  to  leather  garments,  they  had  coats  of  felt. 

The  re-organizer  of  the  military  power  of  the  Huns  was  the  famed 
Moduk l  (Mau-tun),  who  at  the  end  of  the  third  century  B.C.  welded  the 
scattered  tribes  into  a  compact  unit.  Moduk  was  the  son  of  the 
Shan-yu2  T'ou-man,  who  afterwards  had  a  younger  son  by  a  favorite 
consort.  Wishing  to  disinherit  Moduk,  and  to  place  this  younger 
son  on  the  throne,  he  sent  Moduk  as  hostage  to  the  old  enemies  of  the 
Huns,  the  Yiie-chi  (Indoscythians),  and  then  went  on  the  war-path 
against  the  latter.  Moduk,  his  life  being  thus  imperilled,  thought  of 
his  safety,  and,  stealing  one  of  the  swiftest  horses  of  the  Yiie-chi,  fled 
homeward.  His  father,  who  thought  this  was  an  heroic  deed,  placed 
him  in  command  of  ten  thousand  horsemen.  The  ambitious  Moduk 
then  plotted  against  his  father's  life  and  throne.  The  Chinese  historian 
Se-ma  Ts'ien3  narrates  the  story  of  how  he  achieved  his  scheme,  in  a  high- 
ly anecdotal  form,  from  which  important  events  are  apparently  omitted. 
The  story  is  that  Moduk,  making  sounding  arrows,4  trained  his  equestrian 

a  way  that  is  quite  astonishing.  Thus  they  fight  to  as  good  purpose  in  running  away 
as  if  they  stood  and  faced  the  enemy,  because  of  the  vast  volleys  of  arrows  that  they 
shoot  in  this  way,  turning  round  upon  their  pursuers,  who  are  fancying  that  they  have 
won  the  battle.  But  when  the  Tartars  see  that  they  have  killed  and  wounded  a  good 
many  horses  and  men,  they  wheel  round  bodily,  and  return  to  the  charge  in  perfect 
order  and  with  loud  cries,  and  in  a  very  short  time  the  enemy  are  routed.  .  .  .  And 
you  perceive  that  it  is  just  when  the  enemy  sees  them  run,  and  imagines  that  he  has 
gained  the  battle,  that  he  has  in  reality  lost  it,  for  the  Tartars  wheel  round  in  a  mo- 
ment when  they  judge  the  right  time  has  come.  And  after  this  fashion  they  have  won 
many  a  fight."  This  picture  holds  good  as  well  of  the  Scythians,  Huns,  and  T'u-kue. 
From  the  numerous  representations  of  the  mounted  archer  shooting  backward  on  the 
relief  bands  of  the  Han  pottery  we  see  how  deeply  impressed  the  Chinese  were  by 
this  feat  of  military  skill. 

1  This  is  the  correct  Turkish  restoration  of  the  name,  as  based  on  the  data  of  the 
Chinese  commentators,  according  to  O.  FRANKE  (Beitrage  aus  chinesischen  Quellen 
zur  Kenntnis  der  Turkvolker  und  Skythen  Zentralasiens,  A  bhandlungen  der  preus- 
sischen  Akademie,  1904,  p.  10).    He  reigned  B.C.  201  to  177. 

2  Title  of  the  sovereigns  of  the  Huns.  Compare  Plate  XXII  for  a  Chinese  pictorial 
representation  of  one  of  the  Shan-yu. 

*  Shi  ki,  Ch.  1 10,  p.  3  b.  Compare  A.  WYLIE,  History  of  the  Heung-noo  in  their 
Relations  with  China  (Journal  of  the  Anthropological  Institute,  Vol.  Ill,  1874,  p.  408) ; 
E.  H.  PARKER,  The  Turco-Scythian  Tribes  (China  Review,  Vol.  XX,  p.  7);  and  F. 
HIRTH  (Sinologische  Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  der  Turk-Volker,  p.  254,  St.  Petersburg, 
1900),  who  very  well  characterizes  Moduk  as  a  hero. 

4  He  did  not  invent  them,  as  Wylie  translates.  Also  GILES  (No.  10,928;  ming 
ti)  states  that  the  sounding  arrows  were  "invented  by  Mao- tun  or  Meghder"  (simi- 
larly PALLADIUS,  Vol.  I,  p.  174).  ASTON  (Nihongi,  Vol.  I,  p.  87)  makes  Parker  say 
that  the  sounding  arrows  are  not  Chinese,  but  an  invention  of  the  Huns;  but  PARKER 
(China  Review,  Vol.  XX,  p.  7),  referring  to  the  nari-kabura  of  the  ancient  Japanese, 
observes  only  that  the  latter  seem  to  have  imitated  the  Huns.  In  my  opinion  it  is 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  HAN  PERIOD  225 

archers  in  shooting  with  them.    An  order  was  issued  by  him  to  the 
effect  that  all  his  men,  at  whatever  goal  he  should  discharge  a  sounding 


begging  the  question  to  speak  in  this  case  of  an  invention  of  Moduk,  or  of  a  Hunnic 
invention,  or  of  invention  at  all;  for  such  a  contrivance  is  not  an  invention  creditable 
to  an  individual  or  a  single  tribe.  It  represents  the  result  of  a  gradual  finding  and 
experimenting,  the  how,  when,  and  where  of  which  is  lost.  All  we  may  safely  assert 
is  that  chronologically  we  first  meet  these  buzzing  arrows  among  the  Huns,  —  and 
the  text  of  the  Shi  ki  contains  the  oldest  record  of  them,  —  and  that  numerous  archae- 
ological finds  made  in  central  and  western  Siberia  testify  to  the  fact  that  this  type  of 
arrow  was  formerly  generally  diffused  among  the  Turkish  stock  of  peoples  (compare 
B.  ADLER,  Pfeifende  Pfeile  und  Pfeilspitzen  in  Sibirien,  Globus,  Vol.  81,  1902, 
pp.  94-96;  this  brief  notice  is  purely  descriptive,  without  an  historical  point  of  view). 
Moduk  did  not  invent  the  sounding  arrow,  which  surely  existed  before  his  time,  and 
which  was  used  by  his  countrymen  for  hunting  purposes;  but  he  turned  it  to  a  novel 
use  by  availing  himself  of  the  whizzing  noise  as  a  signal  for  a  cavalry  attack.  With 
this  specific  end  in  view  he  had  such  arrows  "made,  '  as  the  Chinese  text  says,  which 
implies  that  they  were  previously  known.  HIRTH  (/.  c.,  p.  254,  note)  has  justly 
doubted  whether  Moduk  may  be  regarded  as  the  "inventor  '  of  the  sounding  arrow, 
since  a  similar  expression  (hao  shi,  No.  3872,  "sounding  arrows,  discharged  by  bandits 
as  a  signal  to  begin  the  attack")  is  metaphorically  employed  by  the  philosopher 
Chuang-tse  of  the  fourth  century  B.C.  But  the  ming  ti  of  Moduk  must  have  been 
affairs  somewhat  different  from  the  latter,  otherwise  we  should  not  have  the  two  dif- 
ferent terms.  There  are  indeed  (and  the  ethnographical  point  of  view  should  never 
be  neglected)  diverse  types  of  sounding  arrows  in  our  collections.  An  arrow  can  be 
made  "sounding  "  by  merely  having  one  or  several  perforations  in  the  iron  blade;  and 
the  humming  is  essentially  intensified  by  a  special  whistling  apparatus  inserted  be- 
tween shaft  and  head.  This  device  is  an  oval-shaped  knob  of  wood  or  bone,  perforat- 
ed like  a  whistle  with  two,  four,  or  more  holes,  on  which  the  wind  plays  when  the  arrow 
sharply  cuts  the  air.  I  venture  to  presume  that  the  sounding  arrow  mentioned  by 
Chuang-tse  belonged  to  the  first  of  these  types,  and  that  of  Moduk  to  the  second; 
the  interpretation  given  by  Ying  Shao  (Shi  ki,  Ch.  no,  p.  3  b)  of  the  term  mint  ti 
leaves  no  doubt  as  to  this  fact.  Again  in  the  Chinese  Annals  we  hear  of  sounding 
arrows  being  in  the  possession  of  the  T'u-kue  or  Turks  (for  instance,  Chou  shu, 
Ch.  50,  p.  3;  Pei  shi,  Ch.  99,  p.  2;  and  JULIEN,  Documents  historiques  sur  les  Tou- 
kioue,  p.  9).  A  new  term  appears  in  the  Annals  of  the  T'ang  Dynasty  (Tang  shu, 
Ch.  39,  p.  9), — hiao  arrows  (hiao  shi).  The  word  hiao,  not  listed  in  any  of  our  dic- 
tionaries, is  written  with  a  character  composed  of  the  classifier  '  bone '  (ku)  and  the 
phonetic  element  hiao  ('filial  piety').  This  reading  is  indicated  in  the  Glossary  of 
the  T'ang  Annals  (Ch.  4,  p.  2  b)  where  the  word  is  explained  by  the  older  term  ming 
ti  ("sounding  arrow").  The  manner  of  writing  the  word  indicates  that  the  question 
is  here  of  arrows  with  a  whistling  contrivance  carved  from  bone.  These  arrows, 
according  to  Tang  shu,  were  sent  as  tribute  from  the  district  Kuei-ch'uan  in  Kuei 
chou,  now  the  prefecture  of  Suan-hua  in  Chi-li  Province  (PLAYFAIR,  Cities  and  Towns 
of  China,  2d  ed.,  No.  7363).  Sounding  bone  arrows,  accordingly,  were  made  and 
used  in  China  during  the  T'ang  period;  and  in  coming  to  Japan,  we  need  not  invoke 
the  Huns,  but  are  confronted  with  the  plain  fact  of  an  idea  directly  imported  from 
China.  The  Kojiki  of  712  A.D.  (B.  H.  CHAMBERLAIN'S  translation,  p.  72)  relates 
that  "the  Impetuous-Male-Deity  shot  a  whizzing  barb  into  the  middle  of  a  large 
moor,  and  sent  him  [the  Great  Deity]  to  fetch  the  arrow,  and  when  he  had  entered 
the  moor,  at  once  set  fire  to  the  moor  all  round."  The  text  employs  the  same  charac- 
ters for  the  word  as  Shi  ki  and  Ts'ien  Han  shu  (Ch.  94  A,  p.  2  b:  ming  ti),  but  they 
receive  the  Japanese  reading  nari-kabura  (literally, '  singing  turnip ').  CHAMBERLAIN, 
in  the  introduction  to  his  translation  of  the  Kojiki  (p.  LXIX),  justly  emphasizes  that 
this  peculiar  kind  of  arrow  belongs  to  the  traces  of  Chinese  influence  on  the  material 
culture  of  old  Japan  (Japanese  illustrations  in  PH.  F.  v.  SIEBOLD,  Nippon,  2d  ed., 
Vol.  I,  p.  342,  and  G.  MUELLER-BEECK,  Mitteilungen  der  deutschen  Ges.  Ostasiens, 
Vol.  IV,  p.  3,  Plates  5  and  6).  In  the  Nihongi  of  720,  a  sounding  arrow  with  eight 
eyes  or  holes  is  mentioned  (ASTON,  Nihongi,  Vol.  I,  p.  87;  K.  FLORENZ,  Japanische 
Mythologie,  p.  206).  Reverting  to  China,  we  have  for  the  Mongol  period  Rubruck's 
account  to  the  effect  that  Mangu  made  a  very  strong  bow  which  two  men  could 


226  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

arrow,  should  aim  at  the  same,  under  penalty  of  decapitation.  To 
ascertain  how  far  his  followers  might  be  relied  upon,  he  speedily  put 
them  to  the  test.  Taking  the  sounding  arrow,  he  aimed  at  his  favorite 
horse,  when  some  of  his  attendants  hesitated  to  follow  his  example,  and 
were  decapitated  on  the  spot.  A  sterner  test  was  soon  in  store:  his 
attendants  stood  aghast  at  seeing  the  sounding  arrow  fly  at  his  cherished 
wife;  those  fearing  to  comply  with  the  order  were  at  once  beheaded. 
Afterwards  he  went  ahunting  and  discharged  the  sounding  arrow  at 
King  T'ou-man's  favorite  horse ;  his  men  without  exception  duly  followed 
suit:  thus  Moduk  knew  that  his  adherents  could  be  trusted,  and  finally 
resolved  on  the  accomplishment  of  his  grand  coup  d'etat.  While  on  a 
hunting-expedition  with  his  father,  he  seized  a  favorable  opportunity 
to  let  a  sounding  arrow  fly  at  the  Shan-yii,  whereupon  a  volley  was 
fired  at  him  by  his  adherents.  The  king  fell ;  and  his  death  was  followed 
by  the  massacre  of  his  wives  (except  Moduk's  own  mother),  his  youngest 
son ,  and  all  officers  of  state  who  refused  allegiance  to  the  victor.  Moduk 
set  himself  up  as  Shan-yii  in  B.C.  201. : 

There  is  assuredly  the  fact  of  a  large  political  movement  at  the  bot- 
tom of  this  narrative.  Certainly,  there  was  no  need  of  a  brigade  or 
two  of  cavalry  to  eliminate  the  person  of  the  king;  it  was  a  wrestle  for 
the  kingdom  which  involved  a  contest  with  a  huge  army.  The  problem 
confronting  Moduk  was  how  to  overrun  the  king's  powerful  host.  At 
this  point  his  reform  set  in :  he  became  the  drill -master  of  his  equestrian 
archers  and  a  prominent  cavalry  tactician.  His  task  was  beset  with 

hardly  string,  and  two  arrows  with  silver  heads  full  of  holes,  which  whistled  like 
a  pipe  when  they  were  shot;  Mangu  sent  these  as  a  symbolic  gift  to  the  King  of  the 
Franks  (W.  W.  ROCKHILL,  The  Journey  of  William  of  Rubruck,  p.  180).  As  to  the 
Ming  period,  these  arrows  are  figured  in  the  Wu  pei  chi  of  Mao  Yuan-i  of  1 62 1  (Ch.  1 02 , 
p.  10).  Those  used  in  the  army  under  the  Manchu  dynasty  are  illustrated  and 
described  in  the  Huang  ch'ao  li  k'i  t'u  ski  (Ch.  14).  They  exhibit  a  great  number  of 
types  and  varieties  which  require  a  special  study;  in  principle,  there  are  two  chief 
classes, — arrows  with  sharp  iron  points  stuck  into  the  whistle;  and  arrows  with 
whistle,  but  without  any  iron  point.  The  latter  do  not  serve  the  purpose  of  killing, 
but  of  making  only  a  certain  impression.  The  Kalmuk  of  the  eighteenth  century  availed 
themselves  of  whizzing  arrows  in  hawk-hunting.  When  the  water-fowl  frightened 
by  birds  of  prey  would  not  rise,  it  was  roused  by  means  of  such  arrows  provided 
with  a  bone  knob,  but  without  iron;  for  the  fowl  should  not  be  slain  while  in  the 
water  (P.  S.  PALLAS,  Sammlungen,  Vol.  I,  p.  147).  Such  blunt  sounding  arrows  were 
used  till  the  end  of  the  Manchu  dynasty  by  the  imperial  body-guards  to  frighten  ob- 
trusive people  when  the  emperor  was  driving  out.  Wounds  from  this  weapon,  if  any, 
were  of  course  harmless.  This  type  of  arrow  is  styled  pao  (E.  v.  ZACH,  Lexicogra- 
phische  Beitrage,  Vol.  I,  p.  50) ;  it  is  not,  however,  as  v.  Zach  explains,  merely  the  bone 
knob  which  is  so  called,  but  the  entire  implement.  The  bone  knob  is  termed  ku 
pao.  The  word  pao  first  appears  in  the  T'ang  leu  tien  (the  "Six  Statutes  of  the  T'ang 
Dynasty")  in  the  sense  of  a  bone  arrowhead.  At  one  time,  sounding  arrows  were 
used  in  old  England,  the  arrowheads  being  perforated  (J.  STRUTT,  Sports  and  Pastimes 
of  the  People  of  England,  p.  127). 

1  This  is  the  date  given  by  M.  TCHANG  (Synchronismes  chinois,  p.  1 18).  WYLIE 
gives  the  date  as  B.C.  209. 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  or  THE  HAN  PERIOD  227 

grave  difficulties;  to  break  the  former  deep-rooted  habit  of  irregular 
fighting  on  the  part  of  these  wild  hordes,  and  to  train  them  to  the  word 
of  one  chief  commander,  required  a  master's  mind  and  an  iron  will- 
power. Men  always  wont  to  unrestricted  freedom  in  the  discharge  of 
their  weapons,  and  almost  unconstrained  as  to  their  movements  and 
operations  on  the  battle-field,  were  now  forced  to  absolute  subjection 
under  the  command  of  the  chief,  and  compelled  to  fire  volleys  strictly  at 
his  signal,  —  a  genuine  cavalry  feat. 

Speaking  cum  grano  salts,  Moduk  did  the  same  as  Cyrus  in  Xeno- 
phon's  Cyropadia,  or  Maurice  of  Nassau  when  in  the  war  of  inde- 
pendence of  the  Netherlands  (1568-1609)  he  drilled  his  German  mer- 
cenaries, who  were  more  lightly  armed  and  mounted  than  their  Spanish 
opponents,  to  form  in  two  or  three  lines,  to  move  rapidly,  and  to  make 
direct  charges  while  firing  their  pistols  at  the  enemy.  Moduk's  method 
of  drilling  naturally  presupposes  an  orderly  array  of  his  troops  in  rigor- 
ous alignments.  The  revolutionary  character  of  his  innovation,  which 
was  a  source  of  amazement  to  his  countrymen,  is  indicated  by  the  grad- 
ual exercises  and  tests,  and  the  severe  punishments  meted  out  to  the 
negligent  ones.  His  military  genius  is  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  he 
conceived  the  bold  plan  of  introducing  a  radically  new  mode  of  tactics, 
that  of  organized  and  compact  cavalry,  in  order  to  overthrow  his  father's 
irregular  horsemen.  He  opposed  the  art  and  strategy  of  war  to  natural 
belligerents,  the  principles  of  cavalry  attacks  to  unprincipled  savage 
warfare.  Was  Moduk  himself  the  inventor  of  this  new  science  of 
tactics?  This  can  hardly  be  presumed.  We  remember  that  he  lived 
as  a  hostage  among  the  Yue-chi.  This,  of  course,  was  at  a  time  when 
the  Yue-chi  still  occupied  their  seats  in  the  northern  part  of  Kan-su; 
their  westerly  migration  took  place  in  B.C.  165.  Maybe  he  learned 
military  lessons  from  the  Yue-chi.  The  facts,  at  all  events,  prove  that 
he  had  the  spirit  and  nerve  of  Cyrus  in  him.  The  Iranian  standard  is 
clearly  demonstrated  in  his  doings.  In  the  same  manner  as  Iranian 
cavalry  practice  was  adopted  by  the  Romans,  it  deeply  influenced 
the  Turkish  tribes;  and  Moduk  was  the  prominent  leader  and  organizer 
of  this  reform. 

In  reading  carefully  the  battles  fought  by  the  Huns  against  the 
Chinese,  we  recognize,  despite  their  meagre  and  incomplete  descriptions, 
that  the  Huns  were  most  expert  cavalry  tacticians,  who  fully  practised 
the  rules  laid  down  by  Frederick  the  Great  after  the  lesson  which  he 
received  from  the  Austrians  at  the  battle  of  Mollwitz, —  "Every  officer 
of  cavalry  must  ever  bear  in  mind  that  there  are  but  two  things  required 
to  beat  the  enemy:  first,  to  charge  him  with  the  greatest  possible  speed 
and  force;  and  second,  to  outflank  him."  Hunnic  skill  in  manoeuvres 


228  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

of  the  latter  sort 1  and  their  ability  for  making  the  best  of  the  field  of 
operations  or  any  accident  of  territory,  are  especially  notable  in  the 
fierce  struggle  against  the  army  of  Li  Ling.  On  outpost  and  scouting 
duty  they  were  unsurpassed.  The  manner  in  which  Moduk  in  an 
unusually  cold  winter  forced  the  army  of  the  first  Han  Emperor,  320,000 
men,  mostly  infantry,  into  a  siege,  enticing  it  on  by  feigning  defeat 
and  flight  and  keeping  his  best  forces  in  ambush,  is  a  feat  worthy  of  this 
military  genius.  It  is  a  deplorable  loss  that  the  details  of  this  unique 
campaign  have  not  been  recorded  accurately.2 

A  "battle  of  the  Huns"  is  preserved  on  the  stone  monuments  of  the 
Hiao-t'ang-shan.3  There  we  see  them  galloping  on  their  sturdy  ponies, 
and  shooting  with  bow  and  arrow.  Others  are  equipped  with  long  hal- 
berds, and  show  us  that  the  Huns  charged  in  the  same  manner  as  the 
cataphracti.  One  horseman  makes  an  attempt  to  drag  another  out 
of  the  saddle  by  means  of  a  long  lance  with  presumably  hooked  point.4 
A  dismounted  warrior,  clad  with  a  cuirass  and  with  sword  in  hand,  is 
engaged  in  cutting  off  heads.  Also  some  of  the  mounted  archers  have 
donned  an  armor.  Reserves  waiting  in  ambush  are  kept  in  the  back- 
ground, shielded  behind  hilly  ground  or  artificially  thrown-up  intrench- 
ments.5  The  king  of  the  barbarians  is  seated  in  front,  giving  instructions 
to  a  man  kneeling  before  him. 

1  It  is  interesting  that  there  is  a  Turkish  word  for  this  manoeuvre,  tulghama.  This 
practice  was  introduced  by  Baber  into  India,  and  is  described  in  his  Memoirs  (PA VET 
DE  COURTEILLE,  Baber  nameh,  Vol.  I,  p.  194,  and  P.  HORN,  Das  Heer-  und  Kriegs- 
wesen  der  Grossmoghuls,  p.  22,  Leiden,  1894).  The  cavalry  of  the  Moghuls,  con- 
sisting of  armored  lancers  mounted  on  caparisoned  horses,  certainly  is  an  offshoot  of 
the  ancient  cataphracti. 

*  A  great  setback  to  the  study  of  military  matters  is  the  lack  in  the  Chinese  annals 
of  any  descriptions  of  battles,  such  as  we  have  in  the  classical  authors.  The  annalists 
are  usually  content  to  state  the  figures  of  the  respective  armies,  the  names  of  the 
commanders,  date  and  locality  of  the  battle,  and  its  final  dry  net  result  with  the  quota 
of  the  slain  and  captives;  but  nothing,  as  a  rule,  is  given  out  concerning  the  military 
operations  in  the  course  of  the  battle.  Only  in  the  biographies  of  the  prominent  gen- 
erals of  the  Han  period  do  we  occasionally  encounter  a  somewhat  detailed  record  of 
the  military  evolutions  of  a  combat,  though  these  also  are  sadly  deficient  and  pass 
over  in  silence  what  we  are  most  anxious  to  learn.  The  Confucian  scholar  never  was 
interested  in  the  military  side  of  the  events. 

1  CHAVANNES,  Mission,  No.  47,  and  La  sculpture,  p.  82.  In  a  poem  of  the  first 
century  A.D.  by  Wang  Yen-sh6n,  descriptive  of  a  palace  in  K'u-fu,  the  home  of  Con- 
fucius, are  mentioned  representations  of  people  from  Central  Asia  (HujSn)  depicted 
in  a  group  on  the  upper  parts  of  the  pillars.  They  were  outlined  kneeling  in  a  reveren- 
tial attitude  opposite  one  another.  "There  they  remained  unmoved  with  their 
long  and  narrow  heads  and  their  eyes  in  a  fixed  gaze  like  that  of  a  bustard  (tiao). 
Over  their  lofty  noses  and  deep  eyes  they  lifted  their  highly  arched  eyebrows.  They 
looked  sad  as  if  in  danger"  (J.  EDKINS,  in  Chinese  Recorder,  Vol.  XV,  1884,  p.  345). 

4  Such  lances  are  illustrated  in  Wu  pei  chi  and  other  Chinese  works  concerning 
military  matters. 

6  M.  CHAVANNES  (/.  c.)  conceives  them  as  going  out  of  tents.  This  point  of  view 
is  possible,  but  the  opinion  as  given  above  seems  to  be  preferable.  The  outlines  here 
in  question  have  hardly  any  resemblance  to  tents. 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  or  THE  HAN  PERIOD  229 

It  must  certainly  be  granted,  as  justly  emphasized  by  CHAVANNES,* 
that  the  Huns  were  initiated  also  into  the  more  "scientific"  strategy  of 
the  Chinese  by  those  Chinese  generals  who,  from  fear  of  being  cashiered 
and  court-martialled  at  home  as  a  sequel  of  their  defeats,  preferred 
surrender  to  the  enemy.  The  brave  General  Li  Ling,  who  was  forced 
to  surrender  to  the  Huns,  is  reported  to  have  trained  their  soldiers  in  the 
art  of  war  as  then  practised  by  the  Chinese;  the  Emperor,  on  hearing 
these  tidings,  condemned  him  as  a  traitor,  and  caused  his  mother,  wife, 
and  children  to  be  put  to  death.2 

HiRTH,3  in  balancing  the  advantages  and  shortcomings  of  Hunnic  and 
Chinese  warfare,  thinks  that  the  Chinese  have  had  on  their  side  greatly 
superior  armament  and  a  certain  uniformity  of  organization.  The 
latter  observation  is  doubtless  to  the  point,  but  I  hardly  believe  that 
Chinese  arms  were  superior  in  technique  to  those  of  the  Huns:  the 
ancient  bronze  and  iron  arms  discovered  in  Siberian  soil  are  surely  as 
good  as  any  of  ancient  China.  Possibly  the  crossbow,  which  was  foreign 
to  the  Huns,  rendered  the  Chinese  superior  in  some  respect. 

The  military  equipment  and  organization  of  the  Han,  compared 
with  that  of  the  Chou,  show  a  number  of  fundamental  changes  which  are 
simultaneously  symptoms  of  radical  reforms  in  the  manner  of  tactics 
and  strategy.  The  main  features  of  these  innovations  are  the  great 
importance  attributed  to  the  horse, — as  the  renowned  General  Ma 
Yuan  put  it,  "the  horse  is  the  foundation  of  all  military  operations,"  4 — 
the  preponderance  of  horsemen  over  infantry,  the  prevalence  of  the 
crossbow  over  the  bow,  the  use  of  body  armor  on  the  part  of  the  horse- 
men, and  the  gradual  development  of  a  genuine  and  regular  cavalry. 
The  immediate  cause  of  these  military  reforms  was  brought  about  by  the 
endless  struggles  with  the  ever-restless  nomadic  hordes  threatening  the 
north-western  outskirts  of  the  empire;  and  imitation  of  their  mode  of 
warfare  consequently  became  imperative.  The  wearing  of  armor 
by  the  horsemen,  as  we  noticed,  was  a  custom  of  the  Huns;  and  if  the 
Chinese  followed  suit,  we  may  well  lay  it  down  as  an  adoption  of  Hunnic 
practice.  This  is  not  merely  an  impression  in  the  matter,  but  a  fact 
confirmed  by  the  report  of  Ch'ao  Ts'o  presented  to  the  throne  in  B.C. 
i69.6  In  this  lengthy  memorial  the  diversity  of  Hunnic  and  Chinese 
warfare  is  set  forth  in  detail;  and  for  the  first  time  the  formation  of  a 


1  Les  M6moires  historiques  de  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  Vol.  I,  p.  LXIX. 

*  GILES,  Biographical  Dictionary,  p.  450. 

1  Ancient  History  of  China,  p.  166. 

4  Hou  Han  shu,  Ch.  54,  p.  9. 

'L.  WIEGER,  Textes  historiques,  p.  414. 


230  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

corps  of  chevaule'gers  (king  ki}1  is  recommended,  as  the  heavy  infantry 
and  war-chariots  of  the  Chinese  were  powerless  against  the  Huns.  He 
further  advised  employing  the  tactics  of  the  Huns  against  the  Huns, 
and  hiring  mercenaries  of  the  horde  I-k'ii  for  this  purpose;  while  within 
the  boundaries  of  the  empire  the  Chinese  army  should  continue  with  the 
Chinese  mode  of  tactics.  This  suggestion  was  not  carried  out  im- 
mediately, but  we  see  it  brought  into  effect  under  the  Emperor  Wu 
(B.C.  140-87),  who  may  be  regarded  as  the  reformer  of  Chinese  cavalry. 
The  man  who  really  achieved  the  work  and  infused  new  life  into  the 
cavalry  arm  was  General  Ho  K'iu-ping,  who  completely  abandoned 
the  traditional  ground  of  Chinese  tactics,  and  put  the  institution  of 
chevaule'gers  into  practice.2  As  a  youth  of  eighteen  he  was  an  ac- 
complished horseman  and  archer,  and  at  the  head  of  a  squadron  of  eight 
hundred  chevau!6gers,  forming  the  advance-guard  of  the  army,  gained 
laurels  against  the  Huns.  In  B.C.  121,  when  only  twenty  years  of  age, 
he  was  appointed  commander-in-chief  of  the  entire  force  of  chevaule'gers, 
and  defeated  the  Huns  in  six  consecutive  battles.3  His  common  sense  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  he  positively  refused  to  study  Sun  Wu's  "Art 
of  War, "  and  preferred  to  trust  to  his  own  judgment.  This  doubtless 
means  that  he  was  a  practical  man  who  rejected  theories,  and  by  long 
experience  had  grasped  the  warfare  of  his  adversary  and  appropriated 
the  latter's  method  as  the  most  promising  one.  His  victories  over  the 
Huns  are  due  to  the  tactics  of  cavalry  which  he  adopted,  while  his  pred- 
ecessors under  the  early  Han  emperors  prior  to  Wu  met  with  dis- 
astrous failures  by  opposing  infantry  to  the  horses  of  the  enemy.  Surely 
the  Chinese  had  bought  their  experience  at  a  high  price. 

Cavalry  thus  grew  during  the  Han  period  into  an  independent 
arm,  and  finally  was  the  most  important  one  in  the  wars  against  the 
roving  tribes  of  Central  Asia.  The  cavalry  had  its  own  organization 
and  administrative  powers.  As  shown  by  a  passage  in  a  memorial 

1  Or  p'iao  ki  (No.  9134),  "fleet  cavaliers"  (see  CHAVANNES,  Les  M6moires  his- 
toriques  de  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  559),  apparently  translation  of  Turkish  lap- 
kunci  (P.  HORN,  Das  Heer-  und  Kriegswesen  der  Grossmoghuls,  p.  21,  and  W. 
RADLOFF,  Worterbuch  der  Turk-Dialecte,  Vol.  Ill,  col.  1922). 

*  A  repetition  of  this  spectacle  took  place  in  Europe  when  it  suffered  in  the  tenth 
century  from  the  inroads  of  the  Hungarians,  until  Henry  I  of  Germany,  by  adopting 
the  cavalry  methods  of  the  enemy,  finally  succeeded  in  repelling  him.  Again,  in  the 
thirteenth  century,  the  light  horsemen  of  the  Mongols  and  Saracens  got  the  better 
of  the  iron-clad  cavalry  of  central  Europe.  Only  the  German  Order  of  Prussia  then 
possessed  enough  military  acumen  to  form  an  excellent  light  cavalry  under  the 
designation  "Turcopoles"  placed  at  the  command  of  a  "Turcopole,"  which  rendered 
good  services  against  Lithuanians  and  Poles  (M.  JAHNS,  Ross  und  Reiter,  Vol.  II, 
p.  86). 

J  His  biography  is  in  Shi  ki  (Ch.  in)  and  Ts'ien  Han  shu  (Ch.  50).  It  has  been 
translated  by  A.  PFIZMAIER  (Sitzungsberichte  Wiener  Akademie,  1864,  pp.  152-170); 
see  also  GILES,  Biographical  Dictionary,  p.  260. 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  HAN  PERIOD  231 

presented  by  Huai-nan-tse  to  the  Han  Emperor  Wu,  there  were  then 
four  officially  recognized  main  bodies  of  troops,  —  war-chariots,  cavalry, 
archers,  and  arbalists.1 

The  new  order  of  military  affairs  is  especially  expressed  by  the  new 
military  offices  instituted  by  the  same  Emperor.  The  high  signi- 
ficance which  the  tactics  of  cavalry  must  have  reached  in  his  time 
is  very  conspicuous  in  these  functions.  He  established  a  commander 
of  cavalry  (tun  ki  hiao  wei),  a  commander  of  the  squadrons  of  foreign 
cavalry  (yue  ki  hiao  wei}  formed  by  the  men  of  the  country  of  Yue 
subjected  to  China,  a  commander  of  the  squadrons  of  foreign  cavalry 
(ch'ang  shui  hiao  wei)  formed  by  the  Turks  or  Huns  (Hu)  of  Ch'ang- 
shui  and  Suan-ho,  and  a  commander  of  the  Turkish  or  Hunnic  cavalry 
(hu  ki  hiao  wei)  stationed  at  Ch'i-yang.2  In  this  institution  of  Turkish 
cavalry  *  incorporated  with  the  Chinese  army  we  may  recognize  a  positive 
sign  of  the  fact  that  the  Chinese  had  borrowed  the  whole  affair  from 
their  Turkish  neighbors,  and  utilized  against  them  their  own  tactical 
stratagems.  Also  in  the  military  colonies  founded  by  the  Emperor 
Wu  in  Turkistan  to  break  the  power  of  the  Turks,  detachments  of 
cavalry  were  established.4 

The  perpetual  wars  with  the  turbulent  nomads  required  an  immense 
number  of  horses.  "In  view  of  his  campaigns  against  the  barbarians 
of  the  north,  the  Son  of  Heaven  maintained  a  large  number  of  horses, 
several  myriads  of  which  were  reared  in  the  capital  Ch'ang-ngan," 
relates  Se-ma  Ts'ien.6  "In  B.C.  119,  the  commander-in-chief  and  the 
general  of  the  chevaule*gers  made  a  great  incursion  to  attack  the  barba- 
rians of  the  north ;  they  took  from  eighty  to  ninety  thousand  captives. 
Five  hundred  thousand  pounds  of  gold  were  distributed  as  reward. 
The  Chinese  army  had  lost  over  a  hundred  thousand  horses.  We  do 
not  here  render  an  account  of  the  expenses  incurred  by  the  land  and 
water  transportation,  the  chariots  and  cuirasses."'  Here, accordingly, 
is  the  question  of  cavaliers  wearing  cuirasses. 

The  generals  of  the  Han  dynasty  were  all  clad  with  armor  and 
mounted  on  horseback.  When  in  48  A.D.  General  Liu  Shang  was  badly 
defeated  by  the  Man  barbarians,  General  Ma  Yuan,  who  had  formerly 

1  L.  WIEGER,  Textes  historiqucs,  p.  506. 

1  Compare  CHAVANNES,  Les  M^moires  historiques  de  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  Vol.  II, 
PP-  525,  526. 

1  The  Tibetans  (K'iang)  also  were  recruited  by  the  Chinese  to  form  regiments  of 
cavalry  (CHAVANNES,  Toung  Poo,  1906,  p.  256). 

4  See  E.  BIOT,  M6moire  sur  les  colonies  militaires  et  agricoles  des  Chinois  (Journal 
asiatique,  1850,  pp.  342,  344,  345). 

'  CHAVANNES,  Les  Me'moires  historiques  de  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  561. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  569. 


232  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

gained  laurels  in  their  pacification,  turned  in  a  petition  asking  to  be 
placed  in  service  again.  As  he  was  in  his  sixty-second  year,  however, 
the  Emperor  declined  his  offer  in  view  of  his  advanced  age.  Ma  Yuan 
then  made  a  personal  appeal  to  him,  saying,  "Your  servant  is  still  able 
to  sit  in  the  saddle  with  the  armor  on  his  body."  The  Emperor  de- 
manded the  experiment,  whereupon  the  aged  soldier  flung  himself  into 
the  saddle  and  daringly  looked  around,  in  order  to  demonstrate  that  he 
was  still  of  use.  The  Emperor,  filled  with  admiration,  entrusted  him 
with  the  command.1  It  is  on  record  that  General  K6ng  Ping,  who  died 
in  91  A.D.,  was  always  at  the  head  of  his  troops,  enveloped  with  his  armor 
and  mounted  on  horseback. 2  There  is  thus  sufficient  evidence  at 
hand  that  the  Chinese  derived  their  whole  system  of  cavalry  from  the 
Huns,  both  cavalry  tactics  and  cavalry  equipment;  and  there  can  be  no 
doubt  of  the  fact  that  the  Chinese  made  exactly  the  same  use  of  cavalry 
as  the  Huns.3  Thus  the  Iranian  ideas  have  filtered  through  the  Huns 
into  the  Chinese.  For  this  reason  it  is  most  likely  also  that  the  new 
cuirasses  bedecked  with  copper  and  iron  lamina!,  coming  up  in  China 
during  the  epoch  of  the  Han,  received  their  impetus  from  the  west,  more 
specifically  from  the  metal  scale  and  plate  armors  worn  by  the  Iranian 
and  Scythian  cataphracti. 

As  said  before,  the  history  of  cavalry  development  in  China  (and 
that  of  military  art  in  general)  remains  to  be  written.  An  interesting 
observation  may  still  be  added  here.  Under  the  Sui  and  T'ang,  the 
light  cavalry,  apparently  the  inheritance  of  the  institution  of  the  Han, 
was  in  full  operation,  particularly  in  the  campaigns  against  the  Turkish 
tribes.  It  seems,  however,  that  the  method  of  cavalry  charges,  as 
established  by  the  Han  after  Hunnic  example,  had  subsequently  fallen 
into  oblivion;  for  we  are  informed  from  the  interesting  biography  of 
Yang  Su  inserted  in  the  Annals  of  the  Sui  Dynasty 4  that  this  daring 

1  Hou  Han  shu,  Ch.  54,  p.  12  b;  HIRTH,  Chinesische  Ansichten  uber  Bronze- 
trommeln,  p.  60. 

2  CHAVANNES,  T'oung  Poo,  1907,  pp.  223,  224. 

*  A  good  example  of  the  employment  of  cavalry  for  reconnoitring  is  furnished 
in  B.C.  152  by  the  feat  of  Li  Kuang,  who  went  out  with  a  guard  of  a  hundred  horsemen 
and  suddenly  saw  himself  confronted  by  a  cavalry  corps  of  several  thousand  Huns. 
He  advanced  to  make  them  believe  that  he  represented  the  vanguard  of  a  large  force 
following.  At  a  short  distance  from  the  enemy  he  gave  orders  to  dismount  and  to 
unsaddle,  in  order  to  show  that  he  had  no  mind  to  retreat.  A  captain  of  the  Huns 
sallies  out;  Li  Kuang  and  ten  of  his  men  jump  on  their  horses,  and  fell  him  with  an 
arrow-shot.  He  turns  back,  unsaddles  again,  and  orders  his  soldiers  to  graze  the 
horses,  and  to  take  a  rest.  Until  the  evening  the  distrustful  Huns  durst  make  no 
charge.  Under  cover  of  night,  the  Chinese  retreated  in  good  order.  The  interesting 
biography  of  Li  Kuang  has  been  translated  by  A.  PFIZMAIER  (Sitzungsberichte  Wiener 
Akademie,  1863,  pp.  512-528). 

4  Sui  shu,  Ch.  48,  pp.  1-6.  According  to  GILES  (Biographical  Dictionary, 
p.  914)  Yang  Su  died  in  606  A.D. 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR^DF  THE  HAN  PERIOD  233 

commander  was  obliged  to  inaugurate  again  a  reform  of  cavalry  tactics. 
In  598  A.D.  the  Turkish  Khan  Ta-t'ou,  the  Tardu  of  the  Byzantine 
historians,  made  an  inroad  into  China;  and  Yang  Su,  appointed  gen- 
eralissimo against  him,  met  with  unusual  success.  Formerly,  the  Chi- 
nese annalist  tells  us  on  this  occasion,  the  generals  in  their  battles  with 
the  Turkish  hordes  were  chiefly  concerned  about  the  cavalry  of  the  en- 
emy, and  merely  observed  an  attitude  of  defence  by  forming  a  carre"  of 
chariots,  infantry  and  riders,  the  latter  being  posted  in  the  centre  sur- 
rounded by  the  other  troops,  and  the  carre"  being  encircled  by  an  abatis.1 
Yang  Su  held  that  this  means  of  defence  was  merely  an  act  of  fortifying 
one's  self,  but  could  never  lead  to  a  victory;  and  he  entirely  abandoned 
this  old-fashioned  practice.  He 
formed  his  troops  solely  into 
squadrons  of  horsemen  ready 
for  immediate  attack.  On 
learning  these  tidings,  the  Khan 
was  overjoyed,  exclaiming, 
"  Heaven  has  accorded  me  this 
favor!"  Dismounting  from  his  ^G-  36- 

Abatis  (from  Huang  ck'ao  It  k'i  I'u  ski). 

horse,  he  looked  up  to  Heaven 

and  worshipped.  At  the  head  of  a  hundred  thousand  picked  equestrians 
he  advanced,  and  suffered  a  distressing  defeat  from  the  hand  of  Yang  Su, 
who  charged  him  with  all  vehemence.  Fortunately  we  are  told  also 
some  details  as  to  the  method  of  Yang  Su's  offensive  procedure.  He  was 
a  harsh  warrior,  enforcing  martial  laws  with  Spartan  severity:  capital 
punishment  was  meted  out  to  whomever  infringed  the  articles  of  war. 
In  open  battle  he  began  operations  by  rushing  one  or  two  hundred  riders 
against  the  position  of  the  enemy.  Did  they  succeed  in  breaking  him, 
it  was  all  right;  did  they  fail  and  retreat,  he  had  all  of  them,  irrespective 
of  their  number,  beheaded  on  the  spot.  Then  he  proceeded  to  send 
forth  a  squadron  of  two  to  three  hundred  men,  until  the  enemy  was 
beaten.  Thus  his  officers  and  men  were  overwhelmed  with  awe,  and 
"  possessed  of  a  heart  ready  to  die."  From  this  time,  Yang  Su  remained 
victorious  in  every  combat,  and  reaped  the  fame  of  a  remarkable  com- 
mander.1 

When  I  make  the  armament  of  the  Iranian  and  Scythian  cata- 


1  In  Chinese  lu  kio  ("stag  horns ")•  Every  visitor  to  China  has  seen  these  affairs 
in  front  of  Yamen  and  police  stations.  The  illustration  (Fig.  36)  is  derived  from 
Huang  ch'ao  li  k'i  t'u  shi  (Ch.  15,  p.  26).  These  abatis  are  first  mentioned  in  the  life 
of  Su  Huang  (San  kuo  chi,  Wei  chi,  Ch.  17,  p.  6),  then  in  the  life  of  Ma  Lung  (Tsin 
shu,  Ch.  57,  p.  2  b),  who  made  extensive  use  of  this  means  of  defence  in  open  territory. 

1  Sui  shu,  Ch.  48,  p.  3. 


234  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

phracti  responsible  for  the  appearance  of  metal  armor  in  China,  and 
when  I  am  inclined  to  trace  the  perfection  in  the  organization  of  the 
cavalry  among  the  Huns  and  Chinese  to  a  movement  issuing  from  Iranian 
quarters,  it  should  be  pointed  out,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  cata- 
phracti  do  not  seem  to  have  exerted  any  directly  imitative  influence  on 
Huns  and  Chinese,  or  that  these  two  nations  did  not  absolutely  copy  or 
adopt  in  all  particulars  this  peculiar  mode  of  warfare.  At  least,  there 
is  no  direct  documentary  testimony  to  this  effect,  save  the  rock-carved 
lancer  on  the  Yenisei  (Fig.  35),  which  thus  far  represents  an  isolated  case. 
The  "battle  of  the  Huns"  above  referred  to  displays  Central- Asiatic 
horsemen  armed  with  long  halberds  amidst  equestrian  archers,  and 
could  possibly  be  invoked  as  attesting,  on  the  part  of  the  Huns,  cavalry 
charges  in  the  manner  of  the  cataphracti.  In  the  Chinese  Annals, 
however,  as  far  as  I  know,  no  instance  of  a  charge  of  horsemen  with 
spears,1  on  the  part  of  either  the  Chinese  or  the  Huns,  is  on  record;  nor 
do  I  find  any  mention  of  armored  horses  in  the  Han  period.  The 
earliest  palpable  evidence  for  an  armored  warrior  astride  a  caparisoned 
horse  is  represented  by  a  clay  figure  pointing  to  the  T'ang  epoch.2 
Several  references  in  the  Annals  allude  to  such  caparison  in  the  sixth  and 
seventh  centuries  of  our  era.  As  the  facts  are,  neither  the  Huns  nor  the 
Chinese  could  have  had  any  use  for  the  more  specific  tactics  of  the 
cataphracti.  These  were  directed  against  heavy-armed  infantry  lined 
up  in  regular  files.  The  Huns  did  not  possess  any  infantry;  and  the 
Chinese  employed  theirs  against  the  Huns  only  in  the  experimental 
stage  of  their  operations,  and  with  such  disastrous  results  that  it  deterred 
them  from  further  experiments.  On  the  whole,  Hunnic-Chinese 
expeditions  were  cavalry  wars  conducted  with  light  brigades.  The 
long  marches,  the  wretched  roads,  the  difficulty  of  the  field  of  operations, 
the  uncertainty  of  supplies  and  forage,  and  the  exhausting  Central- 
Asiatic  climate,  formed  a  serious  handicap  in  the  equipment  of  troops, 
man  and  horse,  with  heavy  armament;  so  that  a  selective  method 
in  what  western  progress  in  the  art  of  war  had  to  offer  became  indis- 
pensable. 

In  the  Ming  period  mail-clad  cavaliers  managing  lances  and  war-clubs 


1  Spears  are  not  mentioned  in  the  Han  documents  translated  by  M.  Chavannes, 
but  the  conclusion  would  not  be  warranted  that  they  were  then  not  used  by  the 
Chinese  army.  The  renowned  General  Li  Ling,  who  in  B.C.  99  advanced  into  the 
territory  of  the  Huns  with  a  small  army  of  five  thousand  foot  soldiers,  in  the  first 
encounter  with  the  enemy,  arrayed  his  ranks  in  such  a  manner  that  the  front  line 
was  formed  by  those  armed  with  spears  and  bucklers,  while  the  archers  and  arbalists 
occupied  the  rear.  The  Huns,  as  well  as  the  T'u-kue  and  Uigur  of  later  date,  accord- 
ing to  the  Chinese  records  (Pet  shi,  Chs.  97,  p.  5;  99,  p.  2),  had  spears. 

1  See  Chapter  VII  and  Fig.  51. 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  HAN  PERIOD 


235 


were  in  existence,  as  attested  by  an  illustration  in  the  Lien  ping  shi  ki l 
(Fig.  37).  As  this  recent  epoch  lacked  any  inventiveness  in  military 
matters  and  merely  continued  the  institutions  of  the  T'ang,  Sung,  and 
Yuan,  it  can  hardly  be  credited  with  the  feat  of  having  originated 


FIG.  37. 
Detachment  of  Mail-clad  Cavalry  (from  Lien  pint  shi  ki  of  1568). 

mounted  lancers;  for  the  present,  however,  I  am  unable  to  say  exactly 
at  what  date  this  arm  sprang  up  in  China. 

In  YULE'S  edition  of  Marco  Polo  (Vol.  II,  p.  501)  is  figured  an  in- 
teresting sketch  from  a  Persian  miniature  of  the  thirteenth  century,  rep- 
resenting two  mounted  soldiers.  They  are  styled  by  Yule  "Asiatic 
warriors,"  and  in  all  probability  are  intended  for  Mongols.  The  one 
of  the  two  encased  with  a  plate  mail  is  charging  with  a  lance;  while  his 


*A  work  on  military  art  by  Ts'i  Ki-kuang,  written  in  1568  (WYLIE,  Notes, 
p.  91).    It  is  reprinted  in  Shou  shan  ko  ts'ung  shu,  Vols.  51  and  52. 


236  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

opponent  is  equipped  with  club  and  circular  shield,  a  bow-case  being 
suspended  from  his  girdle. 

We  hear  of  lancers  in  the  history  of  the  Sui  dynasty,  particularly  in 
the  insurrectionary  wars  leading  to  its  downfall.  Yang  Hiian-kan,  who 
died  in  6I3,1  revolted  against  the  Emperor  Yang  of  the  house  of  Sui; 
his  fortitude  and  audacity  are  emphasized  in  his  biography,  and  it  is 
recorded  that  in  battle  he  brandished  a  long  lance,  while  rushing  at  the 
head  of  his  troops  with  loud  war-cries. 2  Li  Mi  (582-6i8),3  in  his  strug- 
gle against  Wang  Shi-ch'ung,  availed  himself  of  a  cavalry  troop  equipped 
with  long  lances,  who,  enclosed  in  a  narrow  pass,  were  helpless  against  the 
riders  of  Wang  Shi-ch'ung  armed  with  short  swords  and  bucklers. 4 

1  GILES,  Biographical  Dictionary,  p.  903. 

8  Sui  shu,  Ch.  70,  p.  2. 

*  GILES,  /.  c.,  p.  453. 

4  Tang  shu,  Ch.  84,  p.  3. 


IV.  HISTORY  OF  CHAIN  MAIL  AND  RING  MAIL 

Steed  threatens  steed,  in  high  and  boastful  neighs 
Piercing  the  night's  dull  ear,  and  from  the  tents 
The  armourers,  accomplishing  the  knights, 
With  busy  hammers  closing  rivets  up, 
Give  dreadful  note  of  preparation. 

— SHAKESPEARE  (King  Henry  V). 

In  the  preceding  notes  we  attempted  to  establish  on  the  basis  of 
inward  evidence  a  progressive  historical  sequence  indicating  a  connec- 
tion which  linked  Iran,  Turan,  and  China  in  matters  of  warfare  and 
armament  about  the  first  centuries  before  our  era.  We  now  propose 
to  subject  to  an  investigation  a  specific  case  revealing  in  the  time  of  the 
early  middle  ages  the  transmission  of  a  well-defined  type  of  body  armor 
from  Persia  to  China  and  other  countries. 

At  the  present  time  we  find  widely  distributed  over  Asia  an  interest- 
ing type  of  defensive  armor  occurring  in  the  two  variations  of  chain 
mail  and  ring  mail.  The  word  "mail"  is  derived  from  French  maille 
(Latin  macula),  and  originally  designates  the  mesh  of  a  net.  Chain 
mail  consists  of  interwoven  links  of  iron  or  steel  so  joined  together  that 
the  whole  affair  in  itself  forms  a  shirt  or  coat.  Ring  mail  is  composed  of 
rows  of  overlapping  iron  or  steel  rings  fastened  upon  a  heavy  back- 
ground of  cloth  or  leather  forming  a  jerkin.  Chain  mail  was  a  favorite 
means  of  defence  in  the  chivalrous  age  of  Europe,  during  the  twelfth 
and  thirteenth  centuries.  At  present  specimens  are  still  encountered  in 
Persia,  among  the  tribes  of  the  Caucasus,  in  India,  Tibet,  Mongolia, 
Siberia,  and  China.1  Tibet  is  probably  now  the  only  country  in  the 
world  where  chain  mail  is  still  donned  in  actual  military  service;  while 
all  other  peoples  simply  keep  it  as  an  heirloom  or  relic  of  the  past,  or, 
like  the  chieftains  of  some  Caucasian  tribes,  may  sometimes  parade  it 
on  ceremonial  occasions. 

The  origin  of  chain  mail,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  following  notes,  is 
to  be  sought  in  Iran.  The  Persian  chain  mail  is  an  astounding  example 
of  the  migration  and  wide  distribution  of  a  cultural  object  over  a  vast 
area.  Not  only  is  it  diffused  over  India,  Tibet,  and  China,  but  also  over 
the  whole  of  Siberia;  and  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  nearly  all  observers 

1  Reference  to  the  use  of  chain  mail  among  the  Kiu-ku  Miao  has  been  made  above 
(p.  194). 

237 


238  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

in  those  regions  are  agreed  as  to  its  foreign  origin.1  Old  PALL  AS2 
describes  it  as  existing  among  the  Kalmuk  on  the  Volga,  and  "  consisting 
in  Oriental  fashion  of  a  net-work  of  iron  or  steel  rings."  According  to 
his  investigations,  "it  arrived  there  through  commerce  with  the  Truch- 
men  and  Usbek,  likewise  through  wars  with  China ;  the  finest  is  of  Persian 
workmanship,  wholly  from  polished  steel,  and  is  valued  at  fifty  horses 
and  even  more.  Such  precious  armor  as  well  as  fine  swords  and  horses 
receive  individual  names  among  the  Kalmuk  and  Tatar  tribes.  Armor 
of  brass  scales  is  the  most  common  among  the  Mongols  and  in  China." 
In  various  regions  of  the  Altai,  chain  mail  has  been  discovered  which, 
according  to  W.  RADLOFF,*  does  not  come  down  from  the  so-called 
Siberian  iron  period,  but  was  imported  at  much  later  times  from  other 
countries,  perfectly  agreeing  in  its  form,  as  it  does,  with  chain  mail 
wrought  in  the  southern  part  of  Asia.  A.  v.  MIDDENDORFF  4  states  that 
shirts  of  chain  mail  are  still  found  in  the  possession  of  some  Tungusians, 
reminding  them  of  the  valiant  deeds  of  their  ancestors.  But  J.  GMELIN  6 
in  the  eighteenth  century  had  already  observed  that  they  had  fallen  into 
disuse  among  them,  and  were  shown  as  mere  curiosities.  They  are  now 
alive  only  in  their  heroic  tales;  nor  did  I  encounter  any,  despite  repeated 
inquiry,  among  the  Tungusian  tribes  with  which  I  came  in  contact  in 
eastern  Siberia.  The  same  is  the  case  with  the  Irtysh-Ostyak,  a 
tribe  of  the  Ugrian  stock  of  peoples,  whose  princes,  judging  from  the 
references  in  their  epic  songs,  were  formerly  in  possession  of  chain 
mail.  S.  PATKANOV,6  to  whom  this  observation  is  due,  comments  that 
chain  mail  was  previously  known  to  almost  all  nations  of  western,  and 
partially  of  middle  and  eastern  Siberia,  and  that  it  presupposes  a  culture 
and  manual  dexterity  superior  to  any  that  could  be  expected  from  most  of 
these.  Although  the  former  inhabitants  of  those  regions  were  rather 
well  versed  in  the  art  of  forging  iron  and  weapons,  he  inclines  toward  the 
opinion  that  the  shirts  of  mail  formerly  found  among  them  originated 
from  countries  whose  peoples  were  further  advanced  in  culture,  and 
that  they  were  imported  from  the  Orient  through  the  medium  of  the 

1  It  is  widely  spread  also  over  northern  Africa  (Zeitschrift  fur  Ethnologic,  Vol.  XI, 
1879,  Verhandlungen,  p.  34). 

1  Sammlungen  historischer  Nachrichten  uber  die  mongolischen  Volkerschaften, 
Vol.  I,  p.  145  (St.  Petersburg,  1776). 

3  Aus  Sibirien,  Vol.  II,  p.  130  (Leipzig,  1884). 

4  Reise  in  den  aussersten  Norden  und  Osten  Sibiriens,  Vol.  IV,  p.  1516  (St.  Peters- 
burg, 1875). 

6  Reise  durch  Sibirien,  Vol.  II,  p.  644;  and  C.  HIEKISCH,  Die  Tungusen,  p.  73 
(Dorpat,  1882). 

6  Die  Irtysch-Ostjaken  und  ihre  Volkspoesie,  Vol.  II,  p.  014  (St.  Petersburg, 
1900).  In  the  Turkish  epic  poetry  these  iron  armors  are  likewise  mentioned  (A. 
SCHIEFNER,  Heldensagen  der  Minussinschen  Tataren,  p.  xvi,  St.  Petersburg,  1859). 


HISTORY  OF  CHAIN  MAIL  AND  RING  MAIL  239 

Volga  and  Kama  peoples,  or  rather  from  the  southern  Turko-Tatar 
tribes  who  seem  to  be  very  familiar  with  this  kind  of  defensive  armor. 
The  representation  of  chain  mail  on  figures  in  the  cave-temples  of 
Turkistan1  might  be  directly  traceable  to  Iranian  influence,  which  is 
overwhelmingly  manifest  in  those  monuments.  But  let  us  first  exam- 
ine the  state  of  affairs  in  regard  to  ancient  Persia. 

Specimens  of  Persian  armor  of  very  ancient  date,  unfortunately, 
seem  not  to  have  survived;  and  our  knowledge  of  the  subject  is  largely 
founded  upon  literary  records,  and  on  reconstructions  based  on  the 
appearance  of  warriors  as  often  represented  in  the  stone  sculpture  of 
the  Sassanian  period.  In  regard  to  the  armor  of  the  ancient  eastern 
Iranian  tribes,  W.  GEIGER  2  remarks  that  it  possibly  consisted  of  metal 
scales  or  of  a  texture  of  brazen  rings.  The  fundamental  passage  for 
our  knowledge  of  ancient  Persian  armor  remains  HERODOTUS  (VII,  61); 
and  A.  V.  W.  JACKSON,S  taking  it  as  the  starting-point  of  his  study,  has 
made  a  very  valuable  contribution  to  the  subject.  According  to  the 
statement  of  Herodotus,  the  ancient  Persians  wore  tunics  with  sleeves 
of  diverse  colors,  having  upon  them  iron  scales  of  the  shape  of  fish-scales; 
and  this  comparison  leaves  no  doubt  that  scale  armor,  and  not  chain 
mail,  is  meant.4  The  nobles  and  commanders  seem  to  have  worn 
breastplates  of  golden  scales,  bedecked  with  a  purple  tunic  (HERODOTUS, 
IX,  22).  This  passage  shows  that  Persian  armor  was  solid  enough  to 

1  A.  GRttNWEDEL,  Altbuddhistische  Kultstatten  in  Chinesisch-Turkistan,  pp.  8, 
25  (Berlin,  1912). 

1  Ostiranische  Kultur  im  Altertum,  p.  444  (Erlangen,  1882). 

1  Herodotus  vn,  61,  or  the  Arms  of  the  Ancient  Persians  illustrated  from  Iranian 
Sources  (Classical  Studies  in  Honor  of  Henry  Drisler,  pp.  95-125,  6  figs,  and  I  plate, 
New  York,  1894). 

4  According  to  O.  SCHRADER  (Reallexikon,  p.  611),  chain  mail  then  became 
known  in  Europe  for  the  first  time. — The  Persian  shield  mentioned  by  Herodotus 
under  the  name  gerron,  and  contrasted  with  the  Greek  aspis,  in  my  opinion,  has  not 
received  full  justice  from  the  hands  of  Professor  JACKSON  (/.  c.,  p.  99).  The  additional 
note  of  Prof.  Merriam  (p.  124)  is  very  ingenious,  but  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that 
AMMIANUS  MARCELLINUS  (xxiv,  6,  8)  describes  the  Persian  shields  as  oblong  and 
curved  (convex),  of  plaited  willow,  and  covered  with  rawhide,  and  as  used  by  the 
infantry  composed  of  the  rural  population  (quorum  in  subsidiis  manipuli  locati  sunt 
peditum,  contecti  scutis  oblongis  et  curvis,  quae  texta  vimine  etcoriis  crudis  gestantes, 
densius  se  commovebant).  Similar  types  of  shields,  in  which  wood  and  skin  were 
combined,  occurred  among  the  Arabs  (G.  JACOB,  Altarabisches  Beduinenleben, 
p.  136;  G.  MIGEON,  Manuel  d'art  musulman,  Vol.  II,  p.  246,  Paris,  1907).  Typologi- 
cally,  they  correspond  to  the  circular  Chinese  shields  plaited  from  cane  or  rattan, 
and  painted  with  the  head  of  a  tiger  (p.  203).  The  gerra  alluded  to  by  Herodotus  were, 
I  am  inclined  to  think,  likewise  devices  of  plaited  willow.  G.  RAWLINSON  translates, 
"They  bore  wicker  shields  for  bucklers."  Also  XENOPHON  (Anabasis,  i,  8)  speaks  of 
Persian  troops  with  wicker  shields,  and  next  to  them  heavy-armed  soldiers  with  long 
wooden  shields  reaching  down  to  their  feet  (the  latter  were  said  to  be  Egyptians). 
The  ancients,  according  to  the  testimony  of  VEGETIUS  (Instituta  rei  milUaris,  I,  ll), 
who  lived  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  A.D.,  availed  themselves  of  round  shields, 
likewise  plaited  from  willow  twigs  (scuta  de  vimine  in  modum  cratium  corrotundata). 


240  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

resist  the  blows  of  the  Greeks,  as  the  blows  falling  upon  the  breastplate 
of  Masistius  had  no  effect.  Only  a  certain  portion  of  the  Persian  army 
was  shielded  by  armor,  for  in  the  battle  of  Plataea  they  perished  in 
great  numbers  owing  to  their  light  clothing,  contending  against  the 
heavily  armed  Greeks  (HERODOTUS,  IX,  63).  AMMIANUS  MARCELLINUS 
(XXIV,  6;  XXV,  i)  informs  us  that  the  Persians  opposed  the  Romans 
with  such  masses  of  mailed  cavalrymen,  that  the  iron  scales  of  their  ar- 
mor suits,  following  the  movements  of  the  body,  reflected  a  glaring  splen- 
dor, and  that  their  helmets,  representing  in  front  a  human  face,  covered 
their  heads  completely,  openings  being  left  only  for  the  eyes  and  nos- 
trils, —  the  only  spots  where  they  were  vulnerable. l 

The  iron  scale  armor  of  early  times  was  retained  in  the  age  of  the 
Arsacides  and  Sassanians.  Then,  also,  the  force  of  the  Persian  army  was 
the  cavalry,  consisting  of  the  nobles.  The  horsemen  occupied  the  first 
place  in  the  order  of  battle,  and  success  depended  chiefly  on  their 
strength  and  bravery.  On  the  Sassanian  rock-carvings,  chain  mail 
appears  beside  scale  armor.  A  bas-relief,  probably  from  early  Sas- 
sanian times,  represents  such  a  Persian  horseman  clad  with  chain 
armor  reaching  almost  down  to  his  knees,  and  provided  with  sleeves^ 
his  neck-guard  is  so  high  as  to  envelop  his  head  completely;  he  wears  a 
helmet  with  floating  ribbons,  and  carries  a  lance  nearly  two  metres 
long  in  his  right  hand  and  a  small  shield  in  his  left,  a  quiver  being 
attached  to  his  belt.  Head,  nape,  and  chest  of  the  horse  are  likewise 
protected  by  chain  armor.2  At  the  time  of  the  Khusrau,  the  complete 

1  Contra  haec  Persae  objecerunt  instructas  cataphractorum  equitum  turmas  sic 
confertas,  ut  laminis  coaptati  corporum  flexus  splendore  praestringerent  occursantes 
obtutus. — Ubi  vero  primum  dies  inclaruit,  radiantes  loricae  limbis  circumdatae  ferreis, 
et  corusci  thoraces  longe  prospecti,  adesse  regis  copias  indicabant. — Erant  autem  om- 
nes  catervae  ferratae,  ita  per  singula  membra  densis  laminis  tectae,  ut  juncturae 
rigentes    compagibus    artuum    convenirent:     humanorumque   vultuum    simulacra 
ita  capitibus  diligenter  apta,  ut  imbracteatis  corporibus  solidis,  ibi  tantum  incidentia 
tela  possint.  haerere,  qua  per  cavernas  minutas  et  orbibus  oculorum  adfixas  parcius 
visitur,  vel  per  supremitates  narium  angusti  spiritus  emittuntur. 

2  CHRISTENSEN  (I/empire  des  Sassanides,  p.  60,  Copenhague,  1907),  who  describes 
this  armor,  says  that  it  is  scale  armor.     The  monument  to  which  he  refers  seems  to 
be  identical  with  the  one  illustrated  by  J.  DE  MORGAN  (Mission  scientifique  en 
Perse,  Vol.  IV,  p.  319)  after  a  bas-relief  of  Takht-i-Bostan,  and  identified  with  Khos- 
rau  II  Purwez  (591-628).      DE  MORGAN,  however,  interprets  this  armor  as  chain 
mail,  which  plainly  appears  on  the  helmet  as  reconstructed  by  him,  enveloping  the 
entire  face  and  neck,  two  almond-shaped  openings  being  left  for  the  eyes;  this  coif 
of  mail  attached  to  the  iron  calotte  of  the  helmet,  according  to  DE  MORGAN,  is  joined 
to  the  mail  of  the  armor.    SARRE  and  HERZFELD  (Iranische  Felsreliefs,  p.  203,  Berlin, 
1910),  in  their  description  of  this  bas-relief,  give  the  same  interpretation  of  chain 
mail.    According  to  the  same  authors  (p.  74),  the  costume  of  a  king  on  a  Sassanian 
relief  of  Naqsh-i-Rustam  consists  of  scale  armor,  and  ring  mail  for  the  protection 
of  arms  and  legs.    On  another  relief  (p.  83)  the  same  kind  of  armature  is  pointed  out, 
scale  armor  reaching  down  to  the  hips,  while  arms  and  legs  seem  to  be  enveloped  with 
ring  mail.     In  two  other  places  (pp.  203,  249),  however,  chain  mail  reaching  down 
to  the  knees  is  pointed  out.    I  am  under  the  impression  that  DE  MORGAN  and  SARRE, 


HISTORY  OF  CHAIN  MAIL  AND  RING  MAIL  241 

outfit  of  the  horsemen  consisted  of  horse  mail,  a  shirt  of  mail,  a  breast- 
plate, cuishes,  a  sword,  lance,  shield,  a  club  attached  to  the  belt,  a 
hatchet,  a  quiver  containing  two  stringed  bows  and  thirty  arrows,  and 
two  twisted  strings  in  reserve  fastened  to  the  helmet.1  The  manufacture 
of  armor  was  at  the  height  of  perfection  in  the  Sassanian  epoch.  When 
the  Arabs  overran  the  Persian  Empire  and  conquered  Ktesiphon,  they 
found  in  the  well-equipped  arsenals  the  king's  cuirass  with  brassards, 
cuishes,  and  helmet,  the  whole  wrought  in  pure  gold.2 

Chain  mail,  which  doubtless  existed  under  the  Sassanians,  is  dis- 
tinctly mentioned  in  the  Avesta  (Vendidad,  XIV,  9)  under  the  name 
zradha.  According  to  JACKSON,3  this  word  is  presumed  to  designate  the 
ringed  mail-coat;  so  called,  it  is  thought,  from  its  rattling.  The  word 
is  derived  from  the  root  zrad  (corresponding  to  Sanskrit  hrad),  which 
means  "to  rattle."  The  Pahlavi  version  of  the  Vendidad  passage 
renders  the  word  zradha  by  zrai,  which  answers  to  Firdausl's 4  Persian 
word  zirih,  already  explained  by  VULLERS  in  his  Lexicon  Persico- 
Latinum  as  "vestis  militaris  ex  anulis  fereis  conserta."  The  identifica- 
tion of  zirih  or  zireh  with  chain  mail  seems  to  be  certain,  for  under  the 


in  their  interpretations  of  armor  on  the  bas-reliefs,  are  somewhat  influenced  by  the 
statement  of  Herodotus.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  however,  that  chain  mail  was 
known  in  Persia  during  the  Sassanian  epoch,  and  at  the  much  earlier  age  of  the 
Avesta  (see  above). 

1  Compare  A.  CHRISTENSEN  (/.  c.,  p.  60);  C.  INOSTRANTSEV,  Sassanidian  Studies, 
p.  80  (in  Russian,  St.  Petersburg,  1909). 

1  CHRISTENSEN  (/.  c.,p.  106). 

1  L.  c.,  p.  117.  BARTHOLOMAE  (Altiranisches  Worterbuch,  p.  1703)  renders  the 
word  only  by  " Panzerkoller,  Panzer." 

4  Compare  the  passage  from  the  Shah-ndmeh  quoted  by  JACKSON  (/.  c.,  p.  107). 
O.  SCHRADER  (Sprachvergleichung  und  Urgeschichte,  p.  103;  and  Reallexikon, 
p.  61 1)  assumes  that  Avestan  zradha  had  the  meaning  "scale  armor,"  and  is  identical 
with  the  one  described  by  Herodotus.  This  opinion  seems  to  me  unfounded;  Persian 
zirih,  which  is  derived  from  that  word,  and  the  same  transmitted  to  India,  have  the 
significance  "chain  mail;"  so  that  also  zradha  is  most  likely  to  have  had  the  same 
meaning.  Schrader's  point  of  view  is  merely  prompted  by  the  desire  to  make  the 
interpretation  of  the  word  conform  with  the  passage  of  Herodotus.  This  is  naturally 
one-sided:  Iran  must  have  possessed  various  types  of  armor  from  ancient  times, 
and  chain  mail  must  have  pre-existed  there  before  it  was  propagated  from  this 
centre  to  all  parts  of  the  world.  From  the  Chinese  account  given  below,  it  follows 
that  chain  mail  held  its  ground  in  Sogdiana  in  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  century; 
and  if  Jackson's  identification  of  the  Sino-Persian  term  ket-li-dang  occurring  in  the 
Annals  of  the  Sui  Dynasty  (see  this  volume,  p.  28,  note  i)  is  correct,  we  should  have 
additional  evidence  for  the  employment  of  chain  mail  in  Sassanian  Persia.  Of 
course,  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  scale  armor  was  out  of  commission  during  the 
Sassanian  period;  it  may  very  well  have  persisted  during  that  time,  together  with  a 
variety  of  other  kinds  of  armor.  The  fact  that  such  were  then  in  existence  is  brought 
out  by  the  figure  of  the  Persian  grandee  hunting  a  boar  and  a  lion  on  the  famous 
silver  bowl  in  the  Eremitage  of  St.  Petersburg  (A.  RIEDL,  Ein  orientalischer  Teppich 
vom  Jahre  1202,  p.  28;  and  reproduced  in  many  other  books).  A  real  history  of 
Persian  armor  remains  to  be  written. 


242 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


FIG.  38. 

Helmet  and  Chain  Mail  horn  Ain  I  Akbari  (Blochmann's  translation,  Vol.  I,  Plate 
Xin):  (a)  Helmet  with  Nasal  and  Coif  of  Mail;  (b)  Chain  Mail  with  Breastplate 
(bagtar);  (c)  Chain  Mail  composed  of  Steel  Links  (*»>«A). 


HISTORY  OF  CHAIN  MAIL  AND  RING  MAIL  243 

same  name  we  meet  this  armor  in  the  soldiery  of  the  Indian  Moghuls.1 
It  is  figured  among  the  sketches  of  the  Ain  I  Akbari,  a  history  of  the 
Emperor  Akbar,  written  in  1597  by  Abul  Fazl  Allami  (1551-1602). 2 
As  this  work  has  now  become  exceedingly  rare,  three  illustrations  from 
it  are  here  reproduced  from  a  copy  in  the  writer's  possession  (Fig.  38). 
They  are  instructive  from  more  than  one  point  of  view.  First,  they 
furnish  actual  proof  of  Persian  chain  mail,  as  well  as  helmet,  having 
been  transmitted  from  Persia  into  India.  Second,  as  regards  the 
manner  of  drawing,  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  coat  in  Fig.  38  6  is  striking- 
ly similar  to  the  Chinese  sketch  of  ring  mail  in  Fig.  41.  Both  convey 
the  impression  of  scale  armor,  but  are  explained  as,  and  intended  for, 
chain  mail  and  ring  mail  respectively.3  It  is  exceedingly  difficult  to 
produce  a  good  sketch  of  either;  and  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  two 
draughtsmen,  independent  of  each  other,  have  had  recourse  to  the 
same  mechanical  means  of  representing  them.  They  teach,  as  many 
other  cases,  that  caution  and  criticism  are  necessary  in  diagnosing 
types  of  armor  after  pictorial  or  other  designs.4  The  helmet  (Fig.  38  a) 
with  nasal  and  coif  of  mail  (mighfar)  is  the  same  as  that  still  extant  in 
India,  and  from  there  conveyed  to  Tibet  (Plate  XXVIII).  IRVINE 
(p.  565)  describes  the  zirih  as  a  coat  of  mail  with  mail  sleeves,  composed 
of  steel  links,  the  coat  reaching  to  the  knees.  There  are  six  specimens  in 
the  Indian  Museum.  Armor  in  the  collection  of  the  Nawab  Wazlr  at 
Lakhnau  is  described  in  1785  as  follows:  "The  armor  is  of  two  kinds, 
either  of  helmets  and  plates  of  steel  to  secure  the  head,  back,  breast, 
and  arms,  or  of  steel  network,  put  on  like  a  shirt,  to  which  is  attached  a 


1  W.  IRVINE,  The  Army  of  the  Indian  Moghuls  (Journal  Royal  As.  Soc.,  1896, 
P-  565)- 

1  Translation  of  H.  BLOCHMANN,  Vol.  I,  Plate  XIII  (Calcutta,  1873). 

1  IRVINE  (/.  c.,  p.  564)  remarks  that  from  this  figure  it  may  be  inferred  that,  in 
a  more  specific  sense,  baktar  or  bagtar  was  the  name  for  fish-scale  armor.  Yet  BLOCH- 
MANN'S  explanation  of  this  figure,  according  to  the  Ain  I  Akbari,  is  "chain  mail  with 
breastplate  (bagtar)." 

4  Chinese  sketches  of  defensive  armor  certainly  are  far  from  being  good  or  accu- 
rate; on  the  contrary,  they  are  purely  conventional  in  style,  a  fixed  and  ready-made 
motive  or  model  being  employed  for  each  type  of  armor.  Yet  they  are  not  much 
worse  than  corresponding  designs  from  India,  Persia,  and  mediaeval  Europe.  At  all 
events,  they  are  interesting,  and  in  many  respects  even  instructive.  Whatever  their 
defects  may  be,  if  we  are  willing  to  understand  the  symbolic  language  of  the  draughts- 
men, their  productions  allow  us  in  the  majority  of  cases  to  recognize  what  type  of 
armor  is  intended  by  them,  in  the  same  manner  as  inferences  as  to  the  type  of  armor 
intended  may  be  deduced  from  the  terminology  of  the  language.  In  cases  where  no 
actual  specimens  are  at  our  disposal,  the  Chinese  illustrations  may  still  claim  a  pri- 
mary importance;  where  we  have  specimens  to  study,  as  in  the  case  of  chain  mail  and 
plate  armor,  the  sketches  of  the  Chinese  afford  opportunity  for  an  instructive  com- 
parison; and  for  this  reason  I  have  drawn  upon  these  sources  also.  They  may  render 
us  essential  assistance  in  interpreting  the  types  of  armor  represented  in  statuary 
and  painting. 


244  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

netted  hood  of  the  same  metal  to  protect  the  head,  neck,  and  face.  Un- 
der the  network  are  worn  linen  garments  quilted  thick  enough  to  resist 
a  sword.  The  steel  plates  are  handsomely  decorated  with  gold  wreaths 
and  borders,  and  the  network  fancifully  braided." 

Thus  Persian  chain  mail  spread  to  India  in  the  Moghul  period. 
W.  EGERTON  l  observes  that  Persian  arms  were  generally  worn  by  the 
upper  classes  in  India,  and  that  the  blades  of  swords  were  often  Persian, 
even  though  mounted  in  India;  in  fact,  as  Persian  artificers  were  fre- 
quently employed  at  the  principal  native  courts,  it  is  difficult  sometimes 
to  say  whether  a  piece  of  armor  is  Persian  or  Indian. 

Whether  ancient  pieces  of  chain  mail  are  still  preserved  in  Persia, 
I  am  unable  to  say.2  Plates  XXIII— XXV  illustrate  a  piece  of  mail  com- 
plete with  all  paraphernalia,  the  shirt  with  long  sleeves  being  open  in 
front.  It  was  obtained  at  Tiflis  by  Mr.  Charles  R.  Crane  of  this  city, 
and  is  said  to  have  served  as  the  parade  armor  of  a  chieftain  of  the  Khew- 
sur.*  It  is  doubtless  of  Persian  manufacture,  as  proved  principally 
by  the  Persian  designs  on  the  arm-guard  (Plate  XXV,  Fig.  2).  J. 
MouRiER4  has  already  observed  that  the  helmets  with  coifs  of  mail  and 
the  suits  of  chain  mail  found  among  the  tribes  of  the  Caucasus  seem  to 
be  of  Persian  origin.  The  rings  forming  the  texture  of  that  mail  con- 
sist of  thin  iron  wire  loosely  twisted  together,  being  neither  welded  nor 
riveted.  This  rather  degenerate  style  of  workmanship  testifies  to  the 
fact  that  the  suit  in  question  was  merely  intended  for  ceremonial  or 
pageant  purposes:  an  energetic  sword-blow  would  probably  shatter 
the  whole  outfit.  The  iron  casque  of  the  well-known  Persian  form, 
called  in  Persian  zirih-kulah,  is  provided  with  a  sliding  nasal  (nose- 
guard),  and  with  a  couvre-nuque  consisting  of  a  long  coif  of  mail  guard- 
ing forehead,  cheeks,  neck,  and  shoulders.  On  Plate  XXV  the  two-edged 
sword,  arm-guard,  hauberk,  and  gauntlet,  completing  the  set,  are  shown. 

The  Arabs  have  undoubtedly  derived  chain  mail  from  the  Persians. 
All  the  available  historical  evidence  is  decidedly  in  favor  of  Persian  prior- 


I  An  Illustrated  Hand-Book  of  Indian  Arms,  p.  142  (London,  1880). 

'According  to  EGERTON  (/.  c.,  p.  141),  armor  is  now  no  longer  worn  in  Persia, 
except  to  add  to  the  pageant  of  their  religious  processions,  held  annually  in  the  month 
of  Muharram,  to  commemorate  the  death  of  Hassan  and  Hussain,  the  Shiah  martyrs. 
Many  that  are  of  modern  manufacture  have  been  made  for  ornament  rather  than 
use,  and  betray  in  their  style  the  decline  of  the  art.  The  best  period,  judging  from 
the  examples  preserved,  seems  to  have  extended  from  the  time  of  Shah  Abbas  to 
that  of  Nadir  Shah.  The  armor  of  Shah  Abbas  is  in  the  British  Museum;  it  is  figured 
in  G.  MIGEON  (Manuel  d'art  musulman,  Vol.  II,  p.  251,  Paris,  1907). 

I 1  am  under  obligation  to  Dr.  Charles  B.  Cory,  the  present  owner  of  the  armor, 
for  his  courtesy  in  placing  it  at  my  disposal. 

4  L'art  au  Caucase,  pp.  156,  157  (Paris,  1907). 


HISTORY  OF  CHAIN  MAIL  AND  RING  MAIL  245 

ity.1  Among  the  ancient  Arabs  of  the  pre-Islamic  epoch  we  meet  with 
leather  and  iron  armor,2  without  any  clear  description  of  their  appear- 
an.ce.  The  latter  seem  previously  not  to  have  consisted  of  mail,  though 
th  s  cannot  be  stated  positively;  but  according  to  the  descriptions  of  the 
poets,  chain  mail  comes  into  question  in  the  majority  of  cases.8  Tradi- 
tion ascribed  its  invention  to  King  David,  and  the  Koran  (SQreXXI,  80; 
XXXIV,  10)  sets  forth  that  God  himself  taught  David  how  to  smelt  iron, 
with  which  to  make  the  rings,  and  to  join  them  into  a  solid  armor. 
This  story  certainly  is  devoid  of  historical  value.  The  place  SalQk  in 
Yemen  was  of  old  renowned  for  its  armor  consisting  of  a  double  row 
of  rings.  Also  "  Persian  armor  "  is  mentioned  in  Arabic  records,  where- 
by garments  lined  with  silk  and  cotton  were  understood.  "Armor 
from  Sogd"  (Sogdiana)  became  known  after  the  foreign  conquests  of 
the  Arabs.4  Possibly  also  scale  armor  was  worn.5 

Chao  Ju-kua  narrates  that  the  ruler  of  Basra,  when  he  shows  himself 
in  public,  is  accompanied  by  more  than  a  thousand  mounted  retainers 
in  full  iron  armor,  the  officers  wearing  chain  mail.6 

During  the  early  middle  ages  of  Europe,  the  horses  of  armies 
were  not  caparisoned.  Only  from  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth 
century,  probably  under  the  influence  of  the  Crusades,  were  they  pro- 
tected by  chain-mail  covers.7 

According  to  MAX  JAHNS,*  the  chain  mail  (Par sen,  Barschen),  as  it 
first  appears  during  that  time  in  the  armature  of  the  horse,  is  probably 
of  oriental,  and  more  specifically  of  Persian  origin.  Dr.  BASHFORD 
DEAN,9  the  great  authority  on  armor  in  this  country,  offers  the  following 
suggestive  summary  of  this  subject:  "Chain  mail  marked  a  distinct 
epoch  in  the  development  of  arms  and  armor:  for  it  was  light,  flexible, 
and  extremely  strong.  And  it  soon,  therefore,  came  to  supplant  the 

1  Compare  the  notes  of  C.  H.  BECKER  (Der  Islam,  Vol.  IV,  1913,  pp.  310-311). 
1  F.  W.  SCHWARZLOSE,  Die  Waffen  der  alten  Araberausihren  Dichtern  dargestellt, 
pp.  325.  328  (Leipzig,  1886). 
1  Ibid.,  p.  331. 
4  Ibid.,  p.  334. 

6  G.  JACOB,  Altarabisches  Beduinenleben,  p.  136  (Berlin,  1897).    BECKER  (/.  c.) 
mentions  also  Arabic  cotton  armor  (lubbada);  what  he  calls  ring  mail  (Ringpanser), 
I  believe,  strictly  speaking,  is  chain  mail.      In  the  age  of  the  T'ang  (618-906)  the 
soldiers  of  the  Arabs  were  equipped  with  bow,  arrows,  long  spears,  and  metal  armor 
(Tang  shu,  Ch.  221  B,  p.  8  b). 

•  Lien  huan  so-tse  kia,  literally,  "armor  of  chains,  the  links  of  which  are  mutually 
connected"  (see  HIRTH  and  ROCKHILL,  Chau  Ju-kua,  p.  137). 

7  G.  STEINHAUSEN,  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Kultur,  p.  247;  L.  BECK,  Geschichte 
des  Eisens,  Vol.  I,  p.  863. 

8  Ross  und  Reiter,  Vol.  II,  p.  137. 

9  Catalogue  of  European  Arms  and  Armor  (The  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art, 
Hand-Book  No.  15,  p.  21,  New  York,  1905). 


246  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

cruder  defences  of  Carolingian  times.  Some  authorities  maintain  that 
this  form  of  armor  was  borrowed  from  the  Orient ;  and  certain  it  is  that 
its  development  in  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries  was  largely 
influenced  by  oriental  models.  If,  however,  this  form  of  armor  were 
derived  originally  from  the  East,  it  is  a  rather  remarkable  fact  that  its 
early  appearance  in  Europe  should  be  traced  so  clearly  to  the  northern 
peoples,  and  that  the  'byrnie'  (briinne),  or  shirt  of  mail,  should  have 
become  a  characteristic  part  of  the  equipment  of  a  Norseman.  Never- 
theless it  may  still  have  been  derived  primitively  from  the  East,  since 
it  is  well  known  that  the  early  excursions  of  the  Viking  carried  them 
well  into  the  Mediterranean,  and  that  even  by  the  eighth  century  they 
were  well  acquainted  with  many  objects  of  oriental  origin."  The 
Arabs  and  Byzantines  have  transmitted  chain  mail  to  Europe;  and  a 
share  in  this  movement  may  be  attributed  to  the  cultural  exchanges 
between  East  and  West  during  the  crusades. 

At  the  time  of  Mohammed  the  Arabs  had  already  adopted  the  Persian 
practice  of  protecting  horse  and  man  with  armor,  the  armored  horsemen 
and  horses  being  designated  mudjaffaf;  that  is,  clad  with  the  tidffaf, 
the  Persian  felt  armor.1 

When  we  come  to  China,  the  situation  is  the  same  as  in  Europe  and 
in  India.  Historical  evidence  is  not  lacking  for  the  foreign  origin  of 
Chinese  chain  mail.  Indeed,  the  first  record  alluding  to  it,  the  T'ang 
shu,2  in  its  account  of  K'ang  (Sogdiana,  Samarkand),  states  that  in  the 
beginning  of  the  period  K'ai-yiian  (713-741),  Samarkand  sent  to  China 
chain  armor  (so-tse  k'ai)  as  tribute.3  The  famous  poet  Tu  Fu,  who 

1  Compare  C.  H.  BECKER  (Der  Islam,  Vol.  IV,  1913,  p.  311).    BECKER  states 
that  the  history  of  defensive  armor  in  the  Islamic  world  still  remains  to  be  written; 
but  his  remarks  render  it  sufficiently  clear  that  the  origin  of  these  things  is  to  be 
sought  in  Persia,  and  that  they  were  transferred  to  Europe  through  the  medium  of 
the  Arabs  and  Byzantines.    The  soldiers  of  the  Byzantine  army  were  protected  for 
the  most  part  by  scale  armor,  though,  judging  from  quite  early  monuments,  ring  or 
chain  mail  was  sometimes  used  (O.  M.  DALTON,  Byzantine  Art  and  Archaeology, 
p.  684,  Oxford,  1911). 

2  Ch.  221  B,  p.  i  b. 

3  A  tribute  of  armor  from  Samarkand  is  still  recorded  in  the  Ming  shi  under  the 
year  1392  (see  BRETSCHNEIDER,  China  Review,  Vol.  V,  p.  123).    It  can  of  course  be 
presumed  only  that  the  chain  mail  sent  by  Samarkand  was  of  Persian  origin;  but  this 
conclusion  is  most  probable,  as  the  culture  of  Sogdiana,  the  capital  of  which  was 
Samarkand,  was  thoroughly  Iranian.     From  what  was  said  above  on  "armor  from 
Sogd"  it  seems  that  among  the  Arabs  Sogdiana  was  regarded  as  a  famous  seat  of 
the  manufacture  of  armor.    In  view  of  the  fact  that  chain  mail  is  an  Iranian  import 
in  China  it  is  curious  that  in  the  Persian  legend  of  Alexander's  expedition  to  China, 
the  King  of  China  presents  to  him  among  many  other  things  a  hundred  long  coats  of 
mail  (H.  ZOTENBERG,  Histoire  des  rois  des  Perses,  p.  440).    In  T'ang  shu  (Ch.  220, 
p.  3  b),  where  an  account  of  the  foreign  tribes  of  the  east,  including  Koreans  and 
Tungusians,  is  given,  mention  is  made  of  a  so  kia  ("chain  cuirass");  the  word  k'ai 
is  not  used,  and  the  question  is  probably  of  a  leather  corselet  with  rings  attached  to 
its  surface. 


HISTORY  OF  CHAIN  MAIL  AND  RING  MAIL  247 

lived  about  this  time  (712-770),  alludes  in  a  verse  to  a  "metal-chain 
cuirass"  (kin  so  kid).1  Chain  armor  (so-tse  kid)*  is  distinctly  mentioned 
in  the  Wan  hua  ku,  a  work  written  at  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century,8 
in  which  are  enumerated  the  designations  for  thirteen  kinds  of  armor 
known  at  that  period.  Chain  armor  is  there  listed  as  the  twelfth  in 
the  series ;  and  it  is  expressly  stated  that  it  ranges  in  the  class  of  iron  armor 
(t'ie  kid).  In  all  probability,  however,  this  passage  is  taken  from  the 
T'ang  leu  Hen  (the  "Six  Statutes  of  the  T'ang  Dynasty")  drawn  up  by 
the  Emperor  Yuan-tsung  in  the  first  part  of  the  eighth  century  (p.  189) ; 
and  as  the  thirteen  kinds  of  armor  on  record  are  said  to  have  been  made 
at  that  time  in  the  Imperial  Armory,  we  may  presume  that  chain  mail 
was  turned  out  by  the  Chinese  as  early  as  the  T'ang  period,  after  models 
first  introduced  from  Samarkand. 

In  the  Biography  of  Han  Shi-chung,  who  died  in  1151,*  a  "chain 
connected  armor"  (lien  so  kid)  capable  of  resisting  bows  is  credited  to 
this  general ; 6  but  it  would  seem  that  this  newly-coined  term  does  not 
refer  to  a  real  chain  mail,  but  rather  to  ring  mail,  in  which  rows  of  iron 
rings  are  fastened  to  a  foundation  of  leather  (see  p.  252). 

According  to  the  testimony  of  WILLIAM  OF  RUBRUCK,  chain  mail, 
which  he  styles  haubergeon,  was  known  to  the  Mongols.8  In  the  year 
1345,  during  the  reign  of  the  Emperor  Shun,  Djanibeg  (1342-1356), 
son  of  Uzbeg,7  sent  to  China,  among  other  products,  swords,  bows,  and 
chain  mail  coming  from  Egypt  (Mi-si-rh).8 

Chain  armor  had  no  official  recognition  in  China,  and  was  never 
introduced  into  the  army.  It  is  conspicuously  absent  in  the  military 
regulations  of  the  Ming  dynasty,  nor  is  it  mentioned  in  the  well-informed 
military  work  Wu  pei  chi.  We  have  to  go  as  far  down  as  in  the  K'ien- 
lung  period  to  renew  its  acquaintance.  We  meet  it  there  again  as  a 
foreign  import.  In  the  Imperial  State  Handbook  of  the  Manchu 

1  P'ei  wtn  yunfu,  Ch.  50,  p.  70  (under  so),  or  Ch.  106,  p.  74  (under  kia).    There  is 
also  a  quotation  given  there  to  the  effect  that  "the  finest  of  armors  are  designated 
chain  mail,"  derived  from  a  poetical  work  Erh  loo  fang  shi  hua,  the  date  of  which  is 
unknown  to  me. 

2  Entered  in  GILES'S  Dictionary,  p.  1264  c,  with  the  same  translation. 

3  BRETSCHNEIDER,  Botanicon  Sinicum,  pt.  i,  p.  160,  No.  330. 

*  GILES,  Biographical  Dictionary,  p.  251.    His  biography  is  in  Sung  shi  (Ch.  364, 
p.i). 

1  Sung  shi,  Ch.  364,  p.  6  b. 

•  W.  W.  ROCKHILL,  The  Journey  of  William  of  Rubruck,  p.  261  (London,  1900). 
Rubruck  reports  that  he  once  met  two  Mongol  soldiers  out  of  twenty,  who  wore 
haubergeons.    He  asked  them  how  they  had  got  hold  of  them;  and  they  replied  that 
they  had  received  them  from  the  Alans,  who  are  good  makers  of  such  things,  and  ex- 
cellent artisans. 

7  BRETSCHNEIDER,  Mediaeval  Researches,  Vol.  II,  p.  15. 

8  Yuan  shi,  Ch.  43,  p.  5  b  (K'ien-lung  edition). 


248 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


Dynasty  (Huang  ch'ao  li  k'i  t'u  shi,  Ch.  13,  p.  53)  a  piece  of  chain 
mail  is  illustrated  (reproduced  in  Fig.  39)  under  the  name  so-tse  kia. 
It  is  recorded  that  in  1759,  after  the  subjugation  of  Turkistan,  numerous 
captives  were  made,  and  innumerable  spoils  of  arms  obtained  which 
were  hoarded  by  imperial  command  in  a  building  of  the  palace,  the  Tz'e 
kuang  ko.  Among  these  trophies  were  several  pieces  of  chain  armor ;  and 


FIG.  39. 
Iron  Chain  Mail  from  Turkistan  (from  Huang  ch'ao  li  k'i  I'u  shf). 

a  document  recording  this  event  was  draughted,  and  deposited  be- 
neath those  objects  in  the  treasury.  This  shows  that  in  the  K'ien-lung 
period  chain  armor  was  foreign  to  the  Chinese  and  considered  an  object 
of  curiosity  and  rarity.  The  specimen  consists  of  a  jacket  and  trou- 
sers. The  rings  are  said  to  be  iron ;  but  it  is  not  stated  whether  they  are 
riveted,  nor  can  this  be  gathered  from  the  illustration.  The  shirt  of 
mail  is  closed  in  front,  and  put  on  over  the  head.  The  collar,  as  ex- 


HISTORY  OF  CHAIN  MAIL  AND  RING  MAIL  249 

plained  in  the  text,  is  made  of  white  cotton  and  tied  up  by  means 
of  a  cord. 

Two  specimens  of  chain  mail  secured  in  China  are  represented  on 
Plate  XXVI.  Both  are  jackets  with  sleeves,  having  a  short  slit  under- 
neath the  neck,  and  being  tied  up  by  means  of  a  leather  band.  Though 
identical  in  appearance,  they  are  of  different  technique.  The  shirt  of 
mail  shown  in  Fig.  i  of  the  Plate  consists  of  riveted  steel  rings;  the  one 
in  Fig.  2,  of  welded  iron  rings.  The  former  was  obtained  at  Si-ning, 
Kan-su  Province,  with  the  information  that  it  had  previously  hailed 
from  Tibet;  the  latter,  at  Si-ngan,  Shen-si  Province.  These  two  coats, 
accordingly,  are  technically  much  superior  to  the  one  from  the 
Caucasus,  in  which  the  rings  are  merely  of  twisted  iron  wire  not  welded. 
It  is  thus  clear  that  there  are  coats  of  mail  widely  varying  in  the  technical 
process  and  in  quality.  To  decide  the  question  as  to  the  locality  where 
the  two  specimens  were  manufactured  would  require  a  larger  compara- 
tive material  than  is  at  my  disposal.  The  Tibetans,  as  will  be  seen 
presently,  must  be  discarded  as  being  unable  to  produce  chain  mail. 
The  Chinese,  as  we  noticed,  may  have  themselves  made  it  in  the  T'ang 
period;  it  is  certain,  however,  that  none  is  turned  out  in  China  at  the 
present  time.  Altogether,  these  specimens  are  scarce;  and  modern 
Chinese  accomplishments  in  iron  and  steel  are  so  crude  and  inferior, 
that  it  is  difficult  to  believe  in  the  Chinese  origin  of  the  two  pieces  of 
mail.  Particularly  the  mail  in  Fig.  i  of  Plate  XXVI  represents  such  a 
complex  and  toilsome  technicality,  involving  so  great  an  amount  of 
time  and  patience  as  can  be  credited  only  to  a  highly  professional  and 
skilful  armorer,  who  was  a  specialist  in  this  line;  the  process  of  riveting 
steel  rings,  moreover,  is  not  practised  by  the  Chinese.  My  personal 
impression  in  the  matter,  therefore,  is  that  the  two  mails  were 
fabricated  in  Persia  or  Turkistan,  and  thereupon  traded  to  China. 

An  offensive  weapon  deserves  attention  in  this  connection,  because  a 
chain  is  utilized  in  it,  and  its  invention  is  ascribed  by  the  Chinese  to  a 
foreign  tribe.  This  is  the  t'ie  lien  kia  (No.  1132)  pang,  a  weapon  con- 
sisting of  two  wooden  cudgels,  the  one  nearly  three  times  the  length  of 
the  other,  their  upper  ends  being  connected  by  an  iron  chain  (Fig.  40). 
The  longer  cudgel  is  round,  and  is  held  by  its  lower  end  in  the  hands  of 
the  soldier;  the  shorter  one  is  square  in  cut,  and  provided  at  the  end  with 
a  sharp  iron  point  intended  to  hit  the  enemy's  head.  The  chain  allow- 
ing it  ample  freedom  of  motion,  it  is  swung  around  in  a  wide  circle,  thus 
making  it  a  fierce  and  powerful  weapon.  The  Wu  pei  chi,  illustrating 
and  describing  this  instrument  (Ch.  104,  p.  14),  states  that  its  original 
home  was  among  the  Si  Jung  (the  Western  Jung),  one  of  the  general 
designations  for  the  Turkish  and  Tibetan  tribes  living  north-west 


250 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


*  f  r  *. 


L.  * 


>« 

t* 

JK 


rb 


M! 


FIG.  40. 

Flail-like  Cavalry  Weapon  (from  Wu  pet  chf). 


HISTORY  or  CHAIN  MAIL  AND  RING  MAIL 


251 


from  China;  that  they  made  use  of  it,  while  riding  on  horseback,  in 
fighting  Chinese  infantry;  and  that  the  Chinese  soldiers  learned  to 
handle  it,  and  are  more  clever  at  it  than  the  Jung.  Its  shape  is  com- 
pared to  a  threshing-flail;  and  it  may  even  have  been  derived  from  this 


FIG.  41. 
Ring  Mail  of  Steel  Wire  (from  Wu  pet  chi  of  1621). 

implement,  with  which  it  agrees  in  mechanical  principle.  It  is  still 
known  in  Peking  under  the  name  of  "threshing-flail,"  and  is  used  in 
fencing.  I  saw  this  sport  practised  in  1902,  and  at  that  time  secured  a 
specimen  for  the  American  Museum,  New  York.  In  the  time  of  the 
Emperor  K'ien-lung  it  was  still  employed  in  the  Chinese  army.  * 

1  Huang  ch'ao  It  k'i  t'u  ski,  Ch.  15,  p.  25  b.  According  to  this  work,  the  weapon 
is  first  mentioned  in  the  Tung  lien  of  Tu  Yu,  who  died  in  812,  where  it  is  said  that  it 
was  manipulated  by  women  on  the  walls  to  resist  invaders.  Ti  Ts'ing,  the  famed 
general  in  the  wars  against  the  western  Liao  (biography  in  Sung  shi,  Ch.  290),  who 
died  in  1057,  employed  it  on  horseback. 


252  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

Different  from  chain  mail,  though  allied  to  it,  is  the  ring  mail. 
The  Wu  pei  chi,  as  far  as  I  know,  is  the  only  source  to  inform  us  of  the 
existence  of  this  type  of  armor  in  China  (Fig.  41).  The  cut  of  this  book 
is  here  reproduced,  not  only  because  it  is  unique  in  the  representation  of 
this  specimen,  but  also  because  it  is  very  instructive  in  showing  us  again 
how  difficult  it  is  to  draw  inferences  from  oriental  illustrations  as  to  the 
real  type  of  armor  intended  by  the  artist.  Any  expert  in  armor,  casting 
a  glance  at  this  sketch  furnished  by  the  Ming  edition  of  the  Wu  pei  chi, 
could  voice  no  other  opinion  than  that  it  is  meant  to  represent  a  type  of 
scale  armor.  But  the  author,  as  plainly  stated  in  the  heading,  means 
to  represent  a  ring  armor  made  of  steel  wire;  and  the  description  added 
by  him  leaves  no  doubt  of  this  intention.  He  states  that  "armor  of 
connected  rings  wrought  from  steel  wire  was  formerly  made  by  the  Si 
K'iang,  and  that  the  structure  of  the  rings  is  identical  with  the  large 
iron  wire  rings  of  his  time,  with  openings  as  big  as  in  a  coin;  in  shape,  it  is 
like  a  sort  of  shirt,  and  it  is  held  together  above  by  a  collar;  it  is  not  open 
in  front,  but  put  on  over  the  head;  spears  and  arrows  can  hardly  ever 
pierce  it  and  cause  wounds."  Unfortunately  he  omits  to  state  what  the 
foundation  is  to  which  the  rings  are  fastened;  but  from  the  drawing,  in 
which  the  rings  are  arranged  in  overlapping  rows,  it  is  necessary  to  con- 
clude that  they  were  attached  to  a  solid  garment,  in  the  same  manner  as 
our  ring  mail,  which  consisted  of  steel  rings  sewed  edgewise  upon  leather 
or  strong  quilted  cloth. 

The  name  K'iang  (No.  1 264)  mentioned  in  this  text,  as  is  well  known, 
is  a  general  designation  for  the  multitude  of  ancient  Tibetan  tribes,  at  a 
time  when  they  were  still  settled  in  the  western  parts  of  Chinese  ter- 
ritory. A.  WvLiE1  has  translated  from  the  Annals  of  the  Later  Han 
Dynasty  the  records  pertaining  to  them.  They  were  exterminated  by 
the  Han  dynasty.2  The  Chinese  tradition  tracing  ring  mail  to  Tibetan 
tribes  is  significant,  though  it  is  not  necessary  to  adopt  the  opinion  that 
the  latter  ever  really  made  it.  Yet  the  fact  remains  that  ring  mail  still 
occurs  among  the  Tibetans.  There  is  even  a  Chinese  source  of  the 
middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  alluding  to  it.  In  the  Si-tsang  ki 
("Records  of  Tibet"),  a  small  but  interesting  work  on  Tibet  in  two 
volumes,  published  in  1751  by  Chu  K'i-tang  (Ch.  i,  p.  23),  three  kinds 
of  armor  in  use  among  the  Tibetan  soldiers  are  enumerated, — the  scale 
armor  (liu  ye,  "willow-leaves"),  the  ring  armor  (lien  huan,  "connected 


1  History  of  the  Western  Kiang  (Revue  de  V Extreme-Orient,  Vol.  I,  1883,  pp.  424- 
478). 

1  CHAVANNES,  Les  M&noires  historiques  de  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  591,  595; 
and  Trois  g^neYaux  chinois  (T'oung  Poo,  1906,  pp.  256-258). 


HISTORY  OF  CHAIN  MAIL  AND  RING  MAIL  253 

rings"),  and  the  chain  armor  (so-tse).1  This  naturally  carries  us  to 
Tibet  and  its  relations  to  Persia  in  the  matter  of  chain  mail ;  but  before 
taking  leave  of  China,  it  should  be  emphasized  that  chain  mail  remains 
the  only  type  of  armor  borrowed  and  imported  by  her  directly  from  a 
foreign  country.  With  this  exception,  the  making  of  armor,  though 
foreign  impulses  cannot  be  denied,  is  purely  indigenous,  and  also  Chinese 
in  its  essential  characteristics.  From  a  negative  point  of  view,  its  in- 
dependence from  the  west  is  exhibited  by  several  features  that  are  lack- 
ing in  Chinese,  but  which  occur  in  western  armor:  as,  for  instance, 
the  curious  nasal  (or  nose-guard),  characteristic  of  Persian,  Indian,  and 
Turkish  helmets  (Plates  XXV  and  XXVIII) ;  and  gauntlets,  absent  in 
China,  but  met  in  Persia,  India,  and  Japan. 

The  Persians  seem  to  have  had  relations  with  Tibet  at  an  early  date. 
In  the  "Histoire  des  Rois  des  Perses, "  translated  (from  an  Arabic  source 
composed  between  1017  and  1021)  by  H.ZOTENBERG  (p.  434),  Alexander 
the  Great  is  made  to  undertake  an  expedition  into  Tibet,  whose  king  offers 
him  submission  and  a  tribute  of  a  hundred  loads  of  gold  and  a  thousand 
ounces  of  musk.  The  two  products  of  Tibet  most  eagerly  solicited  by 
the  Persians  are  clearly  emphasized  in  this  legend.  Among  the  wonders 
possessed  by  King  Abarwlz  figured  the  "malleable  gold"  extracted  for 
him  from  a  mine  of  Tibet  (ibid.,  p.  700);  this  was  a  block  of  gold  five 
hundred  grains  in  weight,  flexible  like  wax;  when  pressed  in  one's  hand, 
it  passed  through  the  fingers  and  could  be  modelled;  figures  were  fash- 
ioned from  it,  and  it  would  then  assume  its  former  shape  again. 

The  Annals  of  the  Sui  Dynasty 2  have  preserved  a  most  interesting 
account  of  a  country  styled  Fu,  situated  over  two  thousand  li  north-west 
of  Sze-ch'uan.  As  I  hope  to  show  in  detail  on  a  future  occasion,  the 
question  here  is  of  a  Tibetan  tribe  with  a  thoroughly  Tibetan  culture. 
The  particular  point  that  interests  us  in  this  connection  is  that  this 
tribe  of  Fu  possessed  helmets  and  body  armors  of  varnished  hide,  and 
that  armor  played  a  significant  part  in  its  funeral  ceremonies.  The 
corpse  was  placed  on  a  high  couch;  it  was  washed,  and  dressed  with 
helmet  and  cuirass;  and  furs  were  piled  upon  it.  The  sons  and  grand- 
sons of  the  dead  man,  without  wailing,  donned  their  cuirasses,  and  per- 
formed a  sword-dance,  while  exclaiming,  "Our  father  has  been  carried 
away  by  a  demon!  Let  us  avenge  this  wrong  and  slay  the  demon!" 


1  As  the  Tibetans,  even  less  than  the  Chinese,  can  be  credited  with  the  manuf  acture 
of  chain  mail,  and  as  Tibetan  chain  mail  is  plainly  stamped  as  a  Persian  import, 
suspicion  is  ripe  that  also  Tibetan  (and  consequently  Chinese)  ring  mails  are  derived 
from  the  same  source;  but  strict  evidence  for  the  antiquity  of  ring  mail  in  Iran  yet 
remains  to  be  brought  forward. 

1  Sui  shu,  Ch.  83,  p.  8. 


254  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

This  truly  was  the  burial  rite  of  a  militant  and  valiant  people,  the  dead 
being  believed  to  continue  their  lives  as  warriors,  and  the  survivors 
combating  with  their  arms  the  demon  who  was  supposed  to  have  swept 
him  away.  A  similar  idea  was  symbolically  expressed  on  the  burial- 
places  of  the  Tibetan  heroes,  who  during  the  age  of  the  T'ang  had  fallen 
in  their  bitter  strifes  with  the  Chinese.  As  related  in  the  T'ang  Annals, 
white  tigers  were  painted  on  the  red-plastered  walls  of  the  buildings 
belonging  to  their  sepulchral  mounds  scattered  along  the  upper  course 
of  the  Yellow  River:  when  alive,  they  donned  a  tiger-skin  in  battle,  so 
the  tiger  was  the  emblem  of  their  bravery  after  death.1 

The  Tibetans  were  a  warlike  nation  in  the  early  period  of  their  history, 
and  at  times  the  terror  of  their  neighbors,  even  of  China.  The  Annals 
of  the  T'ang  Dynasty,2  which  call  them  T'u-po  (Tibetan  Bod),  and 
describe  at  length  their  relations  with  the  empire  from  the  seventh  to 
the  ninth  century,  praise  their  armor  and  helmets  as  excellent,  covering 
the  entire  body,  and  leaving  openings  for  the  eyes  only; 3  so  that  power- 
ful bows  and  sharp  swords  cannot  wound  them  very  much.  This  pass- 
age, however  brief,  allows  the  inference  that  Tibetan  armor  of  that  period 
was  of  iron  (for  it  is  designated  with  the  word  k'ai,  No.  5798) ;  that  it  was 
a  complete  armor  with  brassards,  ctdshes,  and  greaves;  and  that  the 
helmet  was  provided  with  a  visor.4  The  "gold"  armor,5  which  King 
Srong-btsan  sgam-po,  according  to  T'ang  shu,  is  said  to  have  transmitted 
as  a  gift  to  the  Emperor  T'ai-tsung  when  he  wooed  the  hand  of  a  Chinese 
princess,  is  perhaps  not  to  be  taken  too  literally ;  the  word  kin  may  simply 
mean  "metal." 6 

Among  the  eastern  Tibetan  tribes  we  have  proof  for  the  existence 
of  iron  armor  as  early  as  the  sixth  century.  The  Pei  shi 7  imparts  the 
interesting  news  that  in  the  first  year  of  the  period  Pao-ting  of  the  Pei 
Chou  dynasty  (561  A.D.)  the  Pai-lan,  a  tribe  of  the  K'iang,  who  in 
matters  of  customs  and  products  agreed  with  the  Tang-ch'ang,8  sent 


1  T'oung  Poo,  1914,  p.  77. 

1  T'ang  shu,  Ch.  216  A,  p.  i  b. 

1  A  striking  analogy  with  the  Persian  helmet  as  described  by  Ammianus  Mar- 
cellinus  (above,  p.  240). 

4  Presumably  of  a  similar  type  as  the  royal  Persian  helmet  figured  by  J.  DE 
MORGAN  (Mission  scientifique  en  Perse,  Vol.  IV,  p.  320,  Paris,  1897). 

6  Thus  translated  by  S.  W.  BUSHELL,  The  Early  History  of  Tibet,  p.  10  (reprint 
from  Journal  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  1880). 

6  A  golden  (huang  kin)  armor,  referring  to  the  T'ang  period,  is  mentioned  in  Ming 
huang  tsa  lu  (Ch.  B,  p.  2). 

7  Ch.  96,  p.  9  b. 

8  Regarding  these  tribes  compare  S.  W.  BUSHELL  (The  Early  History  of  Tibet, 
p.  94),  and  W.  W.  ROCKHILL  (The  Land  of  the  Lamas,  p.  337).    Tibetan  armor  has 
not  infrequently  been  sent  to  China ;  specimens  are  preserved,  and  may  still  be  seen 


HISTORY  OF  CHAIN  MAIL  AND  RING  MAIL  255 

envoys  with  a  tribute  of  cuirasses  made  from  rhinoceros-hide  (si  kia) 
and  iron  armor  (fie  k'ai). 

There  is  a  somewhat  vague  Tibetan  tradition  relative  to  the  period 
of  the  early  legendary  kings,  to  the  effect  that  armor  was  first  introduced 
into  central  Tibet  from  Lower  K'ams  (Mar  K'ams)  in  the  eastern  part 
of  the  country. l  It  is  difficult  to  decide  as  to  what  type  of  armor  is  to  be 
understood  in  this  passage,  in  which  occurs  the  general  word  k'rab,  the 
original  meaning  of  which,  as  we  tried  to  show  (p.  i9$),2  must  have  been 
"scale  armor."  It  may  be  permissible  to  think,  in  this  case,  of  a  style  of 
hide  armor,  as  it  was  in  vogue  among  the  Fu  and  the  neighboring  Shan 
and  Man ;  but  the  tradition  which  here  crops  out  is  somewhat  weak  and 
hazy. 

Coats  of  mail  are  frequently  alluded  to  in  Tibetan  epic  literature  and 
historical  records.  In  the  History  of  the  Kings  of  Ladakh  they  are 
mentioned  under  the  reign  of  the  seventeenth  king,  bLo-gros  C'og-ldan, 
as  being  brought  from  Guge,  eighteen  in  number;  the  most  excellent  of 
them  receiving  individual  names,  as  was  the  case  also  with  swords, 
saddles,  turquoises,  and  other  precious  objects.3  The  usual  types  of 
armor  in  Ladakh  were  chain  or  scale  armor.  The  fact  that  they  are 
recorded  as  coming  from  Guge  is  significant,  for  Guge  must  have  had 
ancient  relations  with  Persia;4  and  the  chain  mail  of  Guge  was  most 
probably  of  Persian  origin.  The  plain  fact  remains  that  the  Tibetan 
blacksmiths  do  not  turn  out  iron  chain  mail,  nor  are  they  capable  of 
making  it;  so  that  they  are  most  unlikely  ever  to  have  made  it  at  any 
earlier  time.  The  supposition  of  an  import  is  therefore  the  only  solu- 
tion of  the  problem. 

The  Wei  Tsang  t'u  chi,  a  description  of  Tibet  by  Ma  Shao-yun  and 
Mei  Si-she"ng  written  in  1792,  has  the  following  note  on  the  outfits  of 

in  many  Lama  temples.  The  Ming  shi  tells  of  a  tribute  of  armor,  swords,  and  products 
sent  in  1374  by  the  country  of  Ngan-ting  in  the  territory  of  the  Kuku-nOr,  which 
was  classified  among  the  Si  Fan  (BRETSCHNEIDER,  China  Review,  Vol.  V,  p.  32). 

1  CHANDRA  DAS,  in  Journal  Asiatic  Society  of  Bengal,  1881,  pt.  i,  p.  214. 

1  B.  HOUGHTON  (Outlines  of  Tibeto-Burman  Linguistic  Palaeontology,  Journal 
Royal  Asiatic  Society,  1896,  p.  41),  in  pointing  out  the  coincidence  of  Tibetan  k'rab 
and  Burmese  k'yap,  remarks  that  each  word  denotes  originally  a  flat,  thin  thing  or 
scale,  and  that  hence  they  come  to  mean  scale  armor.  "It  is,  of  course,  possible," 
he  adds,  "that  this  was  possessed  by  the  Burmans  in  Tibet,  but  on  the  other  hand  it 
is  equally  probable  that  the  words  have  been  applied  independently  on  the  introduc- 
tion of  this  particular  kind  of  armor,  (?  from  China)."  This  view  seems  forced.  The 
words  k'rab  and  k'yap  are  not  loan-words  from  Chinese,  but  on  equal  footing  with 
Chinese  kia  and  kiai,  and  speak  in  favor  of  scale  armor  having  been  a  very  ancient 
means  of  defence  in  the  Indo-Chinese  group  of  peoples. 

'Compare  MARX,  in  Journal  Asiatic  Society  of  Bengal,  Vol.  LX,  pt.  I,  1891, 
pp.  122,  123.  Also  among  the  ancient  Arabs,  excellent  armors  were  named  (SCHWARZ- 
LOSE,  Die  Waffen  der  alten  Araber,  p.  69). 

4  LAUFER,  Toung  Pao,  1908,  p.  13. 


256  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

the  Tibetan  army  of  that  time: 1  "When  the  troops  go  on  an  expedition, 
they  wear  armor  consisting  of  helmets  and  cuirasses.  The  latter  are 
made  of  iron  scales2  or  of  chains.  On  the  helmet  of  the  cavalry  is 
attached  a  red  crest  or  a  peacock-feather.  From  their  waist  hangs  a. 
sword,  on  their  back  is  slung  a  gun,  and  in  their  hand  they  carry  a  pike. 
On  the  infantry  helmet  is  a  cock's  feather.  They  have  hanging  to  their 
waist  a  sword,  without  counting  a  dirk.  Under  their  arm  is  a  bow  and 
arrow,  and  in  their  hand  a  buckler  of  rattan  or  wood.  Some  also  bear  a 
pike  in  their  hand.  Their  wooden  bucklers  measure  one  foot  six  inches 
across,  and  three  feet  one  or  two  inches  in  length,  and  are  painted  with 
pictures  of  tigers,  and  ornamented  with  different-colored  feathers;  * 
outside  they  are  covered  with  sheet  iron." 

If  the  assumption  is  correct  that  Tibetan  chain  mail  is  Persian  in 
origin,  the  scale  armor  would  remain  to  be  looked  upon  as  the  national 
body  armor  of  Tibet,  at  least  as  the  older  type  which  preceded  the  in- 
troduction of  chain  mail.4  In  former  times,  it  seems  to  me,  the  latter 
was  traded  over  a  direct  route  from  Persia  into  Guge  in  western  Tibet, 
on  the  same  path  along  which  religious  ideas  of  the  Zoroastrians  poured 
in  and  exerted  a  deep  influence  on  the  shaping  of  the  Tibetan  Bon  re- 
ligion, while  during  the  last  centuries  northern  India  became  the  mart 
which  supplied  Tibet  with  this  much-craved  article. 

The  Tibetan  and  Persian  relations  in  matters  of  arms  are  expressed 
also  by  the  identity  of  the  Tibetan  and  old-Persian  sword.  Indeed, 
the  Tibetan  sword,  as  still  in  use  at  present,  is  the  same  as  that  re- 


1  ROCKHILL,  Journal  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  1891,  p.  215. 

2  Mr.  ROCKHILL  has,  "made  of  linked  willow-leaf  (shaped  iron  plates)."    But 
the  expression  liu  ye  ("willow-leaf"),  as  we  see  from  the  regulations  of  the  Ming 
dynasty,  refers  to  scale  armor,  not  to  plate  armor.    Mr.  WADDELL  (Lhasa  and  its 
Mysteries,  p.  168)  speaks  of  cuirasses  consisting  of  small,  narrow,  willow-like  leaves 
about  an  inch  and  a  half  long,  threaded  with  leather  thongs,  still  worn  by  Tibetan 
soldiers,  a  few  of  whom  also  wear  coats  of  chain  mail.    The  Chinese  physician  Dr. 
Shaoching  H.  Chuan,  who  visited  Lhasa  with  the  Chinese  Mission  to  Tibet  in  1906- 
1907  has  written  a  very  interesting  and  well-illustrated  article  on  Lhasa  under  the 
title  The  Most  Extraordinary  City  in  the  World  (Nat.  Geogr.  Mag.,  1912,  pp.  959— 
995) ;  on  pp.  978  and  980  are  good  illustrations  of  Tibetan  soldiers  wearing  chain  mail. 

*  In  the  Tower  Armory  there  is  a  shield  of  the  Angami-Naga,  faced  with  bear- 
skin, the  side  ornamented  with  tufts  of  feathers  (HEWITT,  Official  Catalogue  of  the 
Tower  Armories,  p.  100).  Compare  p.  210. 

4  In  ancient  India,  likewise,  scale  armor  seems  to  represent  the  older  type.  The 
fukraniti  describes  solely  this  type  of  armor  by  saying  that  "armor  consists  of  scales 
of  the  breadth  of  a  grain  of  wheat,  is  of  metal  and  firm,  has  a  protection  for  the 
head,  and  is  ornamented  on  the  upper  part  of  the  body  "  (G.  OPPERT,  On  the  Weapons, 
Army  Organization,  and  Political  Maxims  of  the  Ancient  Hindus,  p.  109,  Madras, 
1880).  A  suit  of  Tibetan  scale  armor  is  illustrated  by  A.  GEORGI  (Alphabetum 
Tibetanum,  Rome,  1762,  Plate  IV)  in  the  figure  of  a  shaman,  entitled  do  kion  (that 
is,  c'os  skyong,  "protector  of  religion"). 


HISTORY  OF  CHAIN  MAIL  AND  RING  MAIL  257 

constructed  by  J.  DE  MORGAN  l  after  a  bas-relief  of  Takht-i-Bostan, 
both  in  its  shape  and  in  the  style  of  its  decoration,  for  which  inlaid  stones 
were  employed.  The  history  of  the  sword,  however,  is  somewhat  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  chain  armor,  and  is  not  connected  with  an  importa- 
tion of  swords  from  Persia  into  Tibet.  The  swords  of  the  Turkish 
tribes  of  Central  Asia,  to  which  the  Tibetan  swords  are  related,  must  be 
taken  equally  into  consideration ;  and  it  seems  that  this  type  of  sword  is 
a  common  property  of  the  whole  group,  of  such  great  antiquity  that  the 
accurate  history  of  its  distribution  can  no  longer  be  traced.2 

The  Tibetans  make  (or  rather,  made)  use  also  of  the  circular  and 
convex  rhinoceros-hide  shield  of  Indian  manufacture,  ornamented  with 
four  brass  bosses  (Plate  XXVII,  Fig.  i).3  This  shield  is  employed  like- 
wise in  Burma  and  Siam.  The  national  Tibetan  shield  is  made  from 
rattan  plaited  in  the  basketry  style  of  circular  coils  (Plate  XXVII, 
Fig.  2).  Of  what  type  the  shield  of  the  ancient  Tibetans  (K'iang), 
adopted  by  the  Chinese,  was  (p.  188),  we  do  not  know. 

Also  the  Tibetan  helmet  (Plate  XXVIII),  composed  of  steel  sheets 
incrusted  with  gold  and  silver  wire,  forming  floral  designs,  and  with 
attached  coif  of  mail  and  sliding  nasal,  is  of  Indo-Persian  origin  (com- 
pare Plate  XXV). 

1  Mission  scientifique  en  Perse,  Vol.  IV,  p.  321  (Paris,  1897).  Compare  this 
volume,  p.  15. 

1  The  swords  represented  on  the  monuments  of  Turkistan  belong  to  the  same 
type  (see  A.  GRttNWEDEL,  Altbuddhistische  Kultstatten,  pp.  26,  27,  and  many  other 
examples). 

1  For  Indian  specimens  see  W.  EGERTON,  An  Illustrated  Handbook  of  Indian 
Arms,  pp.  95,  in,  118,  134  (London,  1880).  Rhinoceros-hide  shields  are  mentioned 
in  the  Ain  I  Akbari  of  Abul  Fazl  Allami  (translation  of  H.  S.  JARRETT,  Vol.  II, 
p.  281,  Calcutta,  1891). 


V.  THE  PROBLEM  OF  PLATE  ARMOR 

"The  skilful  leader  subdues  the  enemy's  troops  without 
any  fighting;  he  captures  their  cities  without  laying  siege 
to  them;  he  overthrows  their  kingdom  without  lengthy 
operations  in  the  field.  With  his  forces  intact  he  will  dis- 
pute the  mastery  of  the  Empire,  and  thus,  without  losing 
a  man,  his  triumph  will  be  complete." 

SUN-TSE,  Art  of  War  (translation  of  LIONEL  GILES). 

We  had  occasion  to  allude  to  plate  armor l  in  the  chapter  on  defensive 
armor  of  the  Han  period,  stating  that  in  all  probability  it  existed  in  the 
China  of  those  days;  we  referred  also  to  its  possible  occurrence  among  the 
armor  worn  by  the  cataphracti  of  the  ancients,  and  figured  a  Siberian 
petroglyph  from  the  Yenisei  representing  a  mounted  lancer  clad  with 
such  mail.  We  now  propose  to  discuss  this  problem  in  detail, — a  problem 
of  fundamental  historical  importance,  as  it  reveals  ancient  relations 
between  many  peoples  of  Asia,  and  touches  also  the  question  as  to  the 
connection  of  Asiatic  with  American  cultures.  Classical  and  other 
archaeologists  have  not  yet  ventilated  this  problem,  apparently  for  the 
only  reason  that  they  did  not  sharply  enough  discriminate  between 
the  various  types  of  body  armor.  "Scale  armor"  was  the  catchword 
under  which  everything  of  this  sort  was  pressed  together.2  But  plate 
armor  must  be  strictly  differentiated  from  scale  armor  as  a  special  type, 
which  sprang  up  independently.  The  laminae  forming  plate  armor 
are  rectangular  and  flat,  and  mutually  lashed  together;  and  in  the  same 
manner  the  parallel  horizontal  rows  are  connected  one  with  another. 
Such  connection  is  absent  in  scale  armor,  in  which  each  scale  is  individ- 
ually treated  and  attached  to  a  background;  the  background  is  in  this 
case  a  necessity,  while  in  plate  armor  it  is  dispensable.  The  laminae 
of  scale  armor  are  arranged  like  roofing-tiles  or  the  scales  of  a  fish, 
one  placed  above  another;  while  in  plate  armor  the  laminae,  as  a  rule, 
are  disposed  one  beside  another,  or  but  slightly  overlapping.  Plate 

1  The  word  "plate  armor"  is  used  here  throughout  in  the  sense  adopted  by  American 
ethnologists,  —  armor  consisting  of  horizontal  rows  of  narrow,  rectangular  laminae 
(regardless  of  the  material),  the  single  laminae  or  plates  being  mutually  lashed  to- 
gether by  means  of  thongs,  and  the  various  rows  being  connected  in  a  similar  man- 
ner. Students  of  European  armor  usually  take  the  term  "plate  armor"  to  designate 
armor  composed  of  large  sheets  of  metal  closely  enveloping  chest  and  back.  This 
type  is  here  styled  "sheet  armor." 

1  In  England,  plate  armor  is  usually  styled  "scale  armor. "  E.  H.  MINNS  (Scythians 
and  Greeks,  p.  74,  Cambridge,  1913),  for  instance,  speaks  of  "a  system  of  thongs 
plaited  and  intertwined  as  in  Japanese  and  Tibetan  scale  armor."  This,  of  course,  is 
plate  armor;  scales  are  never  intertwined. 

258 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  PLATE  ARMOR  259 

armor  is  more  flexible  and  lighter  in  weight,  and  hence  recommended 
itself  to  all  nations  who  became  acquainted  with  it.  Plate  armor  can  be 
easily  donned  over  or  beneath  any  garment,  and  does  away  with  the 
uncomfortable  leather  jerkin.  For  this  reason  it  proved  the  most  fa- 
vorite and  enduring  type  of  armor  in  China.  It  was  capable  of  develop- 
ment and  refinement,  while  scale  armor  always  remained  stationary. 

It  is  the  ethnologists  who  were  the  first  to  place  us  on  the  track  of 
this  subject;  and  there  are  chiefly  two  scholars,  Friedrich  Ratzel  and 
Walter  Hough,  who  took  the  leadership  in  this  research.  Our  best  course 
will  therefore  be  to  begin  by  reviewing  their  studies  of  the  subject,  and 
then  to  see  how  their  results  compare  with  the  new  material  now  at  our 
disposal. 

FRIEDRICH  RATZELJ  was  the  first  to  make  a  thorough  investigation 
of  the  geographical  dissemination  of  plate  armor,  as  far  as  the  material 
was  accessible  in  his  time  (1886),  among  the  tribes  of  north-western 
America  and  the  Chukchi,  also  on  the  Society,  Austral,  and  Gilbert 
Islands  in  the  South  Sea.  He  was  particularly  struck  by  the  observa- 
tion that  such  armor  was  lacking  in  other  parts  of  the  world,  and  that  its 
appearance  in  the  Arctic  regions  was  out  of  proportion  to  the  general 
poverty  of  culture  there  prevailing.  The  belief  in  its  independent 
existence  among  these  peoples  conflicted  with  his  axiom  that  the  in- 
dolence of  inventive  power  is  a  fundamental  law  of  the  primitive  stages 
of  ethnic  life.  In  order  to  explain  the  phenomenon  of  plate  armor, 
Ratzel  had  recourse  to  Japan,  where  he  deemed  armor  had  reached  its 
greatest  development,2  and  where  the  threads  of  ancient  tribal  connec- 
tions indicated  by  these  peculiar  productions  ran  together;  and  he 
believed  in  a  direct  contact  between  Japan  and  the  north-west  coast  of 
America  in  the  distribution  of  plate  armor,  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
Asiatic  Continent.  Although  the  result  of  this  investigation  is  seemingly 
historical,  the  methods  and  the  point  of  view  pursued  are  purely  geo- 
graphical; and  an  historical  mind  cannot  fail  to  notice  the  weak  points 
of  this  argumentation.  The  existence  of  plate  armor  in  Japan,  for  in- 
stance, is  merely  accepted  as  a  fact  given  in  space,  without  inquiry 
into  its  historical  foundation  and  development,  and  without  the  knowl- 
edge of  corresponding  objects  in  China  and  other  parts  of  Asia  being 
much  older. 

1  Uber  die  Stabchenpanzer  und  ihre  Verbreitung  im  nordpazifischen  Gebiet 
(Sitzungsberichte  der  Bayerischen  Akadcmie  der  Wissenschaften,  1886,  pp.  181-216; 
3  plates). 

*  H.  SCHURTZ  (Urgeschichte  der  Kultur,  p.  355)  has  adopted  the  opposite  point 
of  view,  and  interprets  that  the  curious  plate  armor  characteristic  of  the  peoples  of 
the  Bering  Sea  has  served  as  model  for  the  Japanese  armor  made  from  lacquered 
pieces  of  leather,  as  certain  traditional  decorations  in  the  former  also  seem  to  prove. 
This  opinion  is  out  of  the  question,  for  technical  and  historical  reasons. 


260  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

WALTER  HOUGH,  in  his  intensely  interesting  and  valuable  study 
"Primitive  American  Armor,"1  arrives,  after  a  careful  survey  of  the 
subject,  at  the  conclusion  that  "plate  armor  in  America  is  a  clear  case 
of  the  migration  of  invention,  its  congeners  having  been  traced  from 
Japan  northeastward  through  the  Ainu,  Gilyak,2  and  Chukchi,  across 
Bering  Strait  by  the  intervening  islands  to  the  western  Eskimo.  Here 
the  armor  spread  southward  from  the  narrowest  part  of  the  strait, 
passing  into  the  slat  armor  of  the  North-west  Coast,  which  is  possibly 
a  development  of  the  plate  idea.  The  plate  armor  also  may  have  spread 
to  the  eastern  coast  of  North  America.  Hence,  it  appears  to  be  con- 

1  Report  of  the  U.  S.  National  Museum  for  1893,  pp.  625-651  (Washington,  1895; 
22  plates). 

2  This  is  a  debatable  point.    J.  BATCHELOR  (The  Ainu  of  Japan,  p.  287,  London, 
1892)  says,  "The  Ainu  also  wore  armor  in  their  wars;  but  it  was  of  a  very  light  kind, 
consisting  entirely  of  leather.    Some  of  them,  however,  wore  Japanese  armor  which 
they  took  from  the  dead  in  warfare.    This  is  also  one  way  in  which  they  came  by 
their  swords  and  spears."    It  seems  quite  certain  that  the  Ainu  have  never  made  any 
plate  armor;  and  what  is  found  among  them  of  this  class  is  plainly  derived  from  the 
Japanese.     Nor  can  the  Gilyak  be  credited  with  plate  armor.    The  only  specimen 
of  iron  plate  armor  ever  discovered  in  this  tribe,  and  figured  and  described  by  L.  v. 
SCHRENCK   (Reisen  und  Forschungen  im  Amur-Lande,  Vol.    Ill,  p.   573),  is,   as 
SCHRENCK  says,  of  Manchu  origin ;  and  he  adds  expressly  that  the  iron  armors,  according 
to  the  unanimous  statement  of  the  Gilyak,  originate  from  the  Manchu.    Dr.  HOUGH, 
who  has  reproduced  Schrenck's  drawing  of  the  helmet  and  of  a  piece  of  the  armor, 
seems  to  have  overlooked  the  description  in  Schrenck's  text,  though  also  on  the 
plate  the  attribute  "old  Manchu"  is  added  to  both  specimens,  in  contradistinction 
to  the  indigenous  real  Gilyak  armor  coat  plaited  from  fibre.    The  Gilyak,  therefore, 
cannot  be  cited,  as  Dr.  HOUGH  has  done,  as  a  stepping-stone  in  the  migration  of 
plate  armor  from  Japan  to  the  Eskimo.    Also  Mr.  BOGORAS  (The  Chukchee,  Jesup 
North  Pacific  Expedition,  Vol.  VII,  p.  164),  whose  exactness  and  carefulness  is  other- 
wise deserving  of  the  highest  praise,  has  fallen  into  the  same  error  by  reproducing 
and  describing  Schrenck's  drawing  as  "Gilyak  armor,"  without  paying  attention  to 
Schrenck's  text.    If,  therefore,  the  statement  of  Bogoras  should  be  correct,  —  that  the 
shape  of  the  plates,  and  the  manner  of  connecting  them,  in  an  iron  armor  of  the 
Chukchi,  are  quite  similar  to  those  observed  on  the  remnants  of  this  "Gilyak  armor,"  — 
this  would  seem  to  say  that  the  Chukchi  armor  in  question  would  have  to  be  con- 
nected with  Chinese,  and  not  with  Japanese  culture,  as  Mr.  BOGORAS  is  tempted  to 
believe;  it  will  be  seen  on  the  following  pages  that  other  weighty  reasons  militate 
strongly  against  this  Japanese  theory.    SCHRENCK,  beyond  any  doubt,  is  correct  in 
his  statement;  and  his  result  agrees  with  my  own  inquiries  among  the  Gilyak  for 
armor,  and  also  with  my  study  of  Chinese  armor.    Only  SCHRENCK'S  definition  of 
"Manchu"  must  be  modified  into  "Chinese."    This  error  is  excusable,  as  any  in- 
vestigation of  Chinese  armor  had  not  been  made  in  his  time.     The  Manchu  can- 
not be  credited  with  any  original  invention  in  the  matter  of  armor:  they  adopted  it, 
like  so  many  other  things,  from  the  Chinese;  and  it  can  be  shown  step  by  step, 
substantiated  by  official  documents,  that  the  Manchu,  as  in  numerous  otjher  matters, 
have  also  faithfully  copied  the  military  equipment  established  by  the  Ming  dynasty. 
There  is  no  Manchu  type  of  armor  which  has  not  yet  existed  in,  and  could  not  be 
derived  from,  the  Ming  period.    SCHRENCK'S  Gilyak  armor,  accordingly,  is  plainly 
a  modern  Chinese  specimen,  that  must  forfeit  any  claim  to  the  historical  utilization, 
to  which  it  has  been  submitted;  it  cannot  be  brought  into  relation  with  Japan,  nor 
with  die  Chukchi,  nor  with  the  Eskimo.     This  ethnographical  continuity  asserted 
by  HOUGH  cannot  be  proved,  nor  does  it  in  fact  exist.    RATZEL  (/.  c.,  p.  214)  had  just- 
ly emphasized  the  entire  lack  of  plate  armor  among  the  peoples  of  Yezo,  Saghalin, 
and  the  adjacent  mainland.      Thus  the  Japanese  theories  of  Ratzel  and  Hough, 
though  reaching  the  same  end,  materially  differ  in  point  of  construction. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  PLATE  ARMOR  261 

elusive  that  plate  armor  in  America  had  Asiatic  origin."  On  p.  633 
Dr.  HOUGH  states  as  follows:  "The  hoop  or  band  armor  mentioned  as 
type  4  is  found  only  on  the  Siberian  side  of  this  area  and,  as  well  as  the 
plate  armor,  recalls  well-known  forms  in  Japan.  This  hoop  armor  is 
interesting  as  showing  the  reproduction  of  plate  armor  types  in  skin, 
being  made  of  horizontal  bands  of  sealskin  instead  of  rows  of  ivory  plates, 
the  rings  telescoping  together  when  the  armor  is  not  in  use."  In 
describing  Eskimo  armor  made  of  five  imbricating  rows  of  plates  of 
walrus  ivory,  Dr.  HOUGH  observes  that  in  the  form,  lashing,  and  ad- 
justment of  the  plates  it  is  identical  with  certain  types  of  Japanese 
armor.1  His  conclusions  are  the  more  remarkable,  as  the  previous 
investigation  of  Ratzel  was  unknown  to  him,  and  his  result  has  apparent- 
ly been  attained  independently.  We  are  here  confronted  with  the 
interesting  case  that  two  ethnographers  of  high  standing  have  made  a 
notable  and  praiseworthy  attempt  to  apply  an  historical  point  of  view 
to  a  purely  ethnographical  situation,  with  a  result  so  tempting  and 
seemingly  convincing  that  some  of  the  best  representatives  of  our 
science  have  readily  accepted  it.2  But  in  the  light  of  a  plain  historical 
fact,  the  position  taken  by  Ratzel  and  Hough  in  this  question  becomes 
untenable.3 


1  Compare  also  HOUGH  (American  Anthropologist,  Vol.  XIV,  1912,  p.  40). 

1  BOGORAS  (/.  c.,  p.  162),  for  instance,  seems  to  accept  Hough's  results;  the 
Chukchi  hoop  armor  is,  to  him,  "evidently  an  imitation  in  skin  of  plate  armor" 
(repeated  after  HOUGH,  p.  633).  R.  ANDREE  (Globus,  Vol.  69,  1896,  p.  82)  acceded 
to  the  theory  of  Hough. 

1  This  case  well  illustrates  the  difficulty  of  historical  reconstructions  built  ex- 
clusively on  the  basis  of  observed  data  of  purely  geographical  and  ethnographical 
character.  As  soon  as  the  Ijght  of  authenticated  historical  facts  is  obtained,  our 
preconceived  assumptions  and  conclusions  will  always  be  subject  to  considerable 
modifications.  In  my  opinion  it  is  therefore  impossible  to  elaborate  with  assured 
results  historical  reconstructions  founded  on  purely  ethnological  data.  Our  mind, 
•owing  to  our  scientific  training,  can  evolve  only  a  logical  sequence  of  thoughts,  and 
interpret  given  data  in  a  highly  logical  manner  only;  but  history  itself  is  not  logical; 
on  the  contrary,  it  is  irrational  and  erratic,  moving  in  zigzag  lines,  like  lightning;  it 
is  a  labyrinth  of  dark  passages  running  in  all  directions;  and,  above  all,  it  is  more 
imaginative  than  the  boldest  flight  of  our  fancy  could  possibly  be.  The  unexpected, 
the  unforeseen,  has  always  happened ;  and  this  is  what  cannot  be  supplied  or  supple- 
mented by  the  logic  of  our  rational  mind.  Reconstructions  certainly  are  justifiable 
and  should  be  attempted,  but  must  never  be  taken  as  a  substitute  for  history,  or 
even  as  real  history;  they  will  always  remain  more  or  less  subjective  and  problemat- 
ical, and  may  be  of  value  as  a  working  hypothesis.  It  should  never  be  forgotten, 
however,  that  the  subjective  criterion  of  conceivableness  or  plausibility,  or  of  an 
appeal  to  our  common  sense,  will  but  seldom  prove  before  historical  facts.  The 
rule  may  even  be  laid  down  that  whatever  may  appear  to  our  conception  as  quite 
natural,  self-evident,  or  logical,  may  hardly  ever  have  happened  that  way,  or  need  not 
have  happened  that  way,  but  otherwise.  Our  knowledge  of  most  subjects  is  still  too 
meagre  to  allow  at  the  present  time  of  culture-historical  reconstructions  embracing  a 
wide  area  of  the  globe.  To  these  belongs  also  the  theme  of  plate  armor,  tiie  specific 
history  of  which  must  first  be  traced  in  the  single  culture  zones  where  it  occurs, 
before  its  general  history  can  be  built  up  with  any  encouraging  result.  Plate  armor 


262  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

In  the  north-east  of  China,  beyond  the  boundaries  of  Korea,  in  the 
east  conterminous  with  the  ocean,  the  northern  limit  being  unknown,  we 
find  from  very  remote  ages  the  habitat  of  a  most  interesting  people,  the 
Su-she"n,  who  have  greatly  stirred  the  imagination  of  Chinese  and 
Japanese  chroniclers.  They  were  the  Vikings  of  the  East,  raiding  on 
several  occasions  the  coasts  of  northern  Japan,  and  fighting  many  a 
sea-battle  with  the  Japanese  in  the  seventh  century.1  For  a  thou- 
sand years  prior  to  that  time,  the  Chinese  were  acquainted  with  this 
tribe  and  its  peculiar  culture:  even  Confucius  is  said  to  have  been 
posted  in  regard  to  them,  and  to  have  been  aware  of  the  fact  that  they 
availed  themselves  of  flint  arrowheads,  usually  poisoned,  which  were 
then  preserved  as  curiosities  in  the  royal  treasury  of  China.  From 
Chinese  records  we  can  establish  the  fact  that  the  Su-she'n  lived  through 
a  stone  age  for  at  least  fifteen  hundred  years  down  to  the  middle  ages, 
when  they  became  merged  in  the  great  flood  of  roaming  Tungusian 
tribes.  They  had  also  stone  axes,  which  played  a  rdle  in  their  religious, 
worship.  A  mere  supposition  is  that  they  belonged  to  the  Tungusian 
stock  of  peoples;  yet  this  remains  to  be  ascertained.  They  may  as  well 
have  been  related  to  one  of  the  numerous  groups  of  tribes  occupying 
ancient  Korea,  or,  which  is  still  more  likely,  to  the  so-called  Palae- 
Asiatic  tribes  of  the  North-Pacific  region;  but  the  whole  ancient  eth- 
nology of  north-eastern  Asia  remains  as  yet  to  be  investigated. 

Under  the  year  262  A.D.  it  is  on  record  in  the  Annals  of  the  Three 
Kingdoms 2  that  the  Su-shen  presented  to  the  Court  of  China  a  tribute  of 
a  mixed  lot  of  harness,  altogether  twenty  pieces,  including  armor  made 
of  leather  or  hide,  of  bone,  and  of  iron,  with  the  addition  of  four  hundred 
sable-skins.3  On  the  iron  armor,  which  was  foreign  to  the  culture  of  the 

certainly  is  not  by  any  means  so  rigidly  restricted  as  assumed  by  Ratzel  and  Hough; 
it  will  be  seen  that  it  takes  its  place  in  China,  western  Asia,  ancient  Siberia  and 
Turkistan,  where  it  is  assuredly  much  older  than  in  Japan. 

1  Compare  Jade,  p.  59.    The  Han  Annals  state  that  the  Yi-lou,  another  name  for 
the  Su-sh6n,  were  fond  of  making  piratical  raids  in  boats;  the  Wo-tsu  settled  in  the 
north-eastern  part  of  Korea,  and  bordering  in  the  south  on  that  tribe,  "dreaded  it 
so  much  that  every  summer  they  were  wont  to  hide  in  the  precipitous  caves  until 
winter,  when  navigation  was  impossible,  at  which  time  they  came  down  to  occupy 
their  settlements"  (E.  H.  PARKER,  Transactions  Asiatic  Society  of  Japan,  Vol.  XVIII,, 
1890,  p.  201).    In  the  same  study  of  Parker  (pp.  173  et  seq.)  a  history  of  the  Su-shSn 
will  be  found. 

2  San  kuo  chi,  Wei  chi,  Ch.  4,  p.  133  (compare  T'oung  Pao,  1913,  p.  347). 

*  I  am  inclined  to  understand  this  passage  in  the  sense  that  there  were  three  dis- 
tinct kinds  of  armor,  made  entirely  either  of  leather,  or  of  bone,  or  of  iron.  It  is 
impossible  to  presume  that  bone  was  used  in  connection  with  iron  in  the  make-up 
of  one  and  the  same  suit  of  armor.  The  iron  armor,  we  are  forced  to  conclude,  must 
have  formed  an  individual  type  in  itself,  and  assuredly  one  alien  to  the  culture  of  the 
Su-sh6n,  who,  we  know  with  certainty,  were  not  acquainted  with  the  technique  of 
metals  for  an  extended  period,  and  availed  themselves  of  flint  arrowheads.  Before 
going  to  press,  I  notice  from  the  work  of  R.  and  K.  TORII  (Etudes  arche"ologiques,. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  PLATE  ARMOR  263 

Su-she'n,  I  shall  comment  later.  Hide  armor  and  bone  armor  formed 
the  national  harness  of  the  Su-she'n,  as  we  may  infer  from  another 
memorable  passage  in  the  Annals  of  the  Tsin  Dynasty l  relating  to  the 
period  265-419  A.D.,  where  the  characteristic  arms  of  the  tribe  are 
enumerated  as  wooden  bows,  stone  crossbows,  hide  and  bone  armor.2 
It  is  remarkable  that  the  Chinese  do  not  ascribe  bone  armor  to  any 
other  of  the  numerous  tribes,  with  whom  they  became  familiar  during 
their  long  history,  and  whose  culture  they  have  described  to  us.  In  all 
likelihood,  the  term  "bone  armor"  occurs  in  their  records  only  in  those 
two  passages;  and  it  is  not  at  all  ambiguous.  There  is  but  one  thing 
that  can  be  understood  by  it,  —  the  well-known  type  of  bone  armor,  as  it 
still  occurs  among  the  tribes  occupying  the  northern  shores  of  the  Pacific 
on  the  Asiatic  and  American  sides,  particularly  among  the  Chukchi  and 
Eskimo,  and  in  that  region  exclusively.3  The  Eskimo  ivory  plate  armor 
represented  on  Plate  XXIX  will  give  some  idea  of  what  the  Su-she'n 


Journal  of  the  College  of  Science,  Vol.  36,  Tokyo,  March  29,  1914,  p.  73),  which  has 
just  reached  me,  that  the  two  Japanese  authors  understand  this  passage  in  exactly 
the  same  sense. 

1  Tsin  shu  (compiled  under  the  T'ang  dynasty  by  Fang  K'iao  and  others), 
Ch.  97,  p.  2  b. 

1  The  question  in  this  passage,  accordingly,  is  of  the  armor,  offensive  and  de- 
fensive, possessed  and  made  by  the  Su-shen  in  the  beginning  of  the  middle  ages.  Hide 
and  bone  armor  are  attributed  to  them,  while  iron  armor  is  not  mentioned.  The 
text  might  be  construed  to  mean  that  the  Su-shen  possessed  but  a  single  type  of 
armor,  composed  of  both  bone  and  leather;  that  is,  plates  of  bone  lashed  together  by 
means  of  hide  thongs;  bone  armor  is  unthinkable  without  such  a  ligament,  but  this 
consideration  need  not  preclude  the  assumption  that  the  Su-shen  fabricated  also  pure 
bide  armor.  The  ethnographical  fact  that  in  the  culture-area  to  which  this  tribe 
belonged  hide  and  bone  armor  still  occur  side  by  side,  must  be  equally  considered  in 
this  question;  and  for  this  reason  we  may  well  understand  the  passage  of  the  Tsin 
Annals  in  the  sense  that  the  Su-shen  had  hide  or  leather  armor,  and  bone  armor.  But 
this  point  of  view  is  of  minor  importance.  The  same  passage  in  the  Tsin  shu  indicates 
a  tribute  sent  by  the  Su-shen  toward  the  end  of  the  period  King-yuan  (260-264)  and 
consisting  of  arrows,  stone  crossbows,  armor,  and  sable-skins.  What  kind  of  armor 
it  was  on  this  occasion  is  not  specified;  but  the  general  word  kia  refers  to  a  hide  armor 
or  cuirass.  J.  KLAPROTH  (Tableaux  historiques  de  1'Asie,  p.  85)  attributes  "cuirasses 
made  from  skin  and  covered  with  bone"  to  the  Yi-lou;  the  latter  are  identical  with 
the  Su-shen,  and  the  text  from  which  Klaproth  translated  must  be  the  same  as  that 
of  the  Tsin  shu  referred  to  above.  The  text  relative  to  the  Yi-lou  inserted  ia 
Hou  Han  shu  (Ch.  115,  p.  2  b)  makes  no  allusion  whatever  to  armor,  but  I  am  not 
inclined  to  infer  from  this  silence  that  the  Yi-lou  or  Su-shen  lacked  armor  in  the  Han 
period. 

1  As  stated  by  me  in  Toung  Poo  (1913,  p.  349),  the  plates  of  this  bone  armor 
were  presumably  carved  from  walrus  ivory,  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  present 
Eskimo  and  Chukchi  plate  armor.  Dr.  W.  HOUGH  of  the  U.  S.  National  Museum  in 
Washington,  to  whom  I  addressed  the  question  as  to  whether  ivory  or  ordinary  bone 
was  utilized  to  a  larger  extent  in  these  pieces  has  been  good  enough  to  write  me  as 
follows:  "The  Eskimo  armor  in  the  Museum  and  such  suits  as  I  have  seen  are 
mostly  made  of  walrus  ivory,  and  so  far  as  I  can  remember,  there  are  no  combinations 
of  ivory  and  bone  in  the  same  piece.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  fragmentary  parts 
of  armor  from  St.  Lawrence  Island  and  from  the  Alaskan  mainland  which  are  made 
of  bone;  just  what  bone  I  cannot  say,  probably  the  whale." 


264  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

tribute  armor  was  like.1  The  point  here  at  issue,  then,  is  the  fact  that 
the  entry  of  the  Chinese  annalist,  under  the  year  262,  regarding  the 
presentation  of  bone  armor  on  the  part  of  the  Su-she"n,  is  the  earliest 
recorded  reference  to  bone  armor  in  history,  capable  of  throwing  a 
flashlight  on  events  in  the  North-Pacific  culture  area,  so  glaringly  devoid 
of  any  records. 

The  date  262  is  of  far-reaching  consequence.  Certainly,  like  all 
dates  where  inventions  or  culture  ideas  are  involved,  it  is  a  mere  symbol, 
that  requires  a  certain  latitude  in  its  translation.  The  tribute  of  262 
indicates  that  bone  armor  had  been  made  prior  to  that  date  by  the 
Su-she"n,  or  generally  within  the  culture-zone  to  which  they  belonged; 
and  since  complex  inventions  of  such  character  require  time  to  mature, 
and  the  laborious  efforts  of  several  generations,  it  is  justifiable  and 
reasonable  to  conclude  that  the  beginnings  of  the  invention  go  back  to  a 
far  earlier  period.  Plate  armor  of  bone  must  therefore  be  infinitely 
older  than  could  heretofore  be  supposed  from  the  mere  circumstantial 
evidence  of  present  geographical  distribution;  and  it  follows  also  that 
the  geographic  area  of  bone  armor  must  have  been  much  more  extended 
in  ancient  times,  and  reached  farther  south  along  the  shores  of  Asia.  In 
other  words,  the  culture  area  under  consideration,  as  it  now  presents 
itself  to  our  eyes,  must  have  occupied  a  larger  territory  in  the  times  of 
which  we  speak,  —  a  conclusion  confirmed  to  me  also  by  other  reasons; 
and  the  Su-shen  must  have  either  ranged  among  the  representatives  of 
North-Pacific  culture,  or  have  been  strongly  influenced  by  it.  If  as 
early  as  262  the  Su-she"n  were  in  possession  of  bone  plate  armor,  this 
type  of  harness  cannot  be  explained  as  having  been  made  in  imitation 
of  Japanese  plate  armor  —  for  the  plain  reason  that  Japanese  plate 
armor  was  at  that  time  not  in  existence.  Metal  armor  in  Japan  cannot 
be  pointed  out  before  the  close  of  the  eighth  century.  Fragments  of 
armor  consisting  of  scales  of  bronze  incrusted  with  gold,  and  preserved 
in  the  Museum  of  Tokyo,  are  assigned  to  about  the  year  800  A.D.  by 
BASHFORD  DEAN,Z  our  great  authority  on  Japanese  armor;  while  frag- 
ments of  iron  plate  armor  are  not  older  than  about  1050  and  noo;  that 

1  The  number  of  perforations  in  the  plates  is  not  always  six,  as  in  the  specimen 
illustrated.  A  large  number  of  detached  Eskimo  ivory  plates  in  the  Field  Museum 
(Cat.  No.  34,154)  exhibits  on  an  average  twelve  perforations,  two  and  two  being  close 
together.  Sometimes  a  third  perforation  is  added  to  the  two  in  the  corners,  and  some- 
times an  additional  perforation  is  drilled  through  the  centre  of  the  upper  or  lower  side. 
A  very  interesting  specimen  in  our  collection  (Cat.  No.  34,153)  is  a  pair  of  Eskimo 
cuisses  (leg-guards)  of  mastodon  ivory,  16.5  cm  long,  with  rows  of  perforations 
along  the  top  and  bottom  edges.  These  objects  were  obtained  by  A.  M.  Baber  from 
the  Asiatic  Eskimo  on  the  Tchukotsk  Peninsula. 

1  Catalogue  of  the  Loan  Collection  of  Japanese  Armor,  pp.  20,  28  (New  York, 
1903)- 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  PLATE  ARMOR  265 

is,  they  belong  to  the  latter  part  of  the  Fujiwara  period  (900-1100). 
Before  this  time,  padded  coats  and  hide  cuirasses  were  the  usual  means 
of  body  protection;  the  latter  sometimes  assumed  the  form  of  scale 
armor,  the  scales  being  cut  out  of  pieces  of  boiled  leather.1 

The  Chinese  Annals  of  the  Sui  Dynasty,2  in  the  interesting  account 
on  Japan,  state  that  the  Japanese  (Wo)  make  armor  of  varnished  leather 
(tsi  p'i  wei  kid)  and  arrows  of  bone.  At  that  time,  which,  from  the 
standpoint  of  Japanese  development,  is  designated  as  the  protohistoric 
or  semihistoric  period,  defensive  armor  cannot  have  played  any  signifi- 
cant r61e  in  ancient  Japan,  as  it  is  conspicuously  absent  in  her  two  oldest 
records,  the  Kojiki  (composed  in  712  A.D.)  and  the  Nihongi  (720  A.D.).S 
In  the  year  780  an  order  was  issued  by  the  government  that  leather  ar- 
mor should  be  used,  because  the  kind  hitherto  worn  (that  is,  padded 
coats)  was  continually  requiring  repair.  This  order  permitted,  further, 
the  use  of  iron  instead  of  leather,  and  advised  that  all  armor  should  be 
gradually  changed  to  metal.4  It  is  therefore  clear  that  at  the  time, 
when  our  Su-she"n  account  of  bone  armor  is  at  stake,  the  Japanese  did 
not  possess  any  metal  or  any  plate  armor,  and  that  it  is  even  question- 
able whether  they  then  availed  themselves  of  defensive  armor  at  all. 
We  are  hence  prompted  to  the  conclusion  that  bone  plate  armor,  being 
at  least  from  six  to  eight  hundred  years  older  than  Japanese  plate  armor, 
cannot  have  been  made  as  a  reproduction  of  the  latter,  and  that  Japan 
cannot  be  made  responsible  for  it.  Thus  the  whole  theory  of  a  con- 
nection of  American  and  Northeast-Asiatic  plate  armor  with  Japan 
must  naturally  collapse. 

If  the  opinion  should  be  correct  of  those  who  believe  that  American- 
Asiatic  plate  armor  must  have  been  made  in  imitation  of  a  form  of  iron 

1  Catalogue  of  the  Loan  Collection  of  Japanese  Armor,  p.  38  (New  York,  1903). 
According  to  W.  GOWLAND  (The  Dolmens  and  Burial  Mounds  in  Japan,  p.  47, 
Westminster,  1897),  no  bronze  armor  has  as  yet  been  found  in  the  dolmens  of  Japan; 
and  iron  armor,  too,  is  by  no  means  of  very  common  occurrence. 

1  Sui  shu,  Ch.  81 ,  p.  6  b  (also  Pei  shi,  Ch.  94,  p.  72).  It  is  notable  that  the  account 
of  Japan  in  the  Annals  of  the  Later  Han  Dynasty  (Ch.  1 15,  p.  5  b)  makes  no  mention 
of  body  armor,  but  points  out  only  the  shield  and  the  use  of  offensive  weapons,  such 
as  spear,  wooden  bow,  and  arrows  with  bamboo  shafts  and  bone  heads.  Arrows  with 
iron  heads  employed  in  Japan  are  first  reported  in  Tsin  shu  (Ch.  97,  p.  3). 

1  O.  NACHOD,  Geschichte  von  Japan,  Vol.  I,  p.  155  (Gotha,  1906).  But  shields 
are  several  times  mentioned  as  offerings.  The  Annals  of  the  Later  Han  Dynasty, 
as  pointed  out,  confirm  the  existence  of  shields.  The  idea  generally  entertained  that 
Japan  has  had  a  bronze  and  an  iron  age,  in  my  opinion,  is  erroneous.  The  bronze 
and  iron  objects  found  in  the  ancient  graves  have  simply  been  imported  from  the 
mainland,  and  plainly  are,  in  the  majority  of  cases,  of  Chinese  manuf  acture.  Many 
of  these,  like  metal  mirrors,  certain  helmets  and  others,  have  been  recognized  as  such; 
but  through  comparison  with  corresponding  Chinese  material,  the  same  can  be  proved 
for  the  rest.  Ancient  bronze  objects  are  so  scarce  in  Japan  that,  even  granted  they 
were  indigenous,  the  establishment  of  a  "bronze  age'  would  not  be  justified,  nor  is 
there  in  the  ancient  records  any  positive  evidence  of  the  use  of  bronze. 

4  BASHFORD  DEAN,  1.  c.,  p.  27. 


266  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

armor,  two  other  theoretical  considerations  could  be  advanced.  There 
remain  the  Chinese  and  the  ancient  Turks  of  Siberia  and  Central  Asia; 
and  it  might  be  argued  that  Chinese  or  Siberian  harness  of  iron  plate 
could  have  furnished  a  suitable  model  for  the  Arctic  harness-maker. 
To  such  a  point  of  view,  however,  serious  objections  could  be  raised; 
and  here  again,  first  of  all,  on  purely  historical  grounds.  The  utiliza- 
tion of  iron  in  the  making  of  armor,  as  we  noticed  in  Chapter  III, 
does  not  become  apparent  in  ancient  China  till  as  late  as  the  first  cen- 
turies of  our  era,  its  beginnings  being  justly  laid  by  the  Chinese  in  the 
period  of  the  Later  Han  dynasty  (25-220  A.D.;  see  p.  210),  and  thus  it 
appears  from  inward  evidence.  This  primeval  iron  armor,  in  all 
likelihood,  was  not  yet  a  true  iron  plate  armor,  but  merely  a  hide 
cuirass  reinforced  by  iron  laminae;  rectangular  iron  plates  may  have 
then  existed,  but  the  matter  is  still  problematical.  Even  presuming 
that  iron  plate  armor  might  have  obtained  during  the  epoch  of  the  Later 
Han,  for  which  there  is  as  yet  no  positive  evidence,  we  should  be  forced 
to  infer  that  the  developments  of  the  ancient  Chinese  iron  armor  and 
the  northern  bone  armor,  in  this  case,  have  necessarily  been  contem- 
poraneous events.  The  tribute  of  the  Su-shdn  bone  armor  in  262 
A.D.  is  separated  from  the  closing  year  of  the  Han  period  in  220  A.D. 
only  by  the  brief  span  of  forty-two  years;  that  is,  the  average  duration 
of  a  generation.  If,  accordingly,  these  two  developments  should  have 
run  parallel  to  each  other  in  point  of  time  in  two  widely  different  culture 
areas  which  otherwise  had  not  a  single  point  in  common,  the  inference 
would  have  to  be  drawn  that  these  two  developments  have  taken  place 
independently,  and  may  have  each  been  prompted  by  factors  coming 
from  a  different  quarter.  In  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge  it  is 
safe  to  assume  that  bone  armor  in  north-eastern  Asia  is  as  old  as,  or 
even  older  than,  any  iron  plate  armor  in  China  or  Korea. 

If  an  outward  impetus  to  the  making  of  bone  armor  in  that  region 
must  be  assumed,  I  am  disposed  to  believe  that  it  came  from  the  interior 
of  Siberia.1  In  regard  to  ancient  Siberian  armor,  our  information  is 
exceedingly  scanty.  Only  traces  of  plates  of  armor  have  been  dis- 
covered in  graves  on  the  Berel,2  and  a  famous  petroglyph  on  the  Yenisei 
depicts  to  us  a  horseman  armed  with  lance  and  mail-clad  (Fig.  35). 
The  long  continuity  of  the  iron  age  in  Siberia  renders  it  impossible  at 

1  For  evidence  see  below,  p.  274. 

1  W.  RADLOFF,  Aus  Sibirien,  Vol.  II,  p.  130.  Also  in  Siberia  iron  armor  may 
have  formed  the  exception,  while  hide,  as  the  cheaper  material,  always  maintained 
its  place.  MARCO  POLO  (ed.  of  YULE  and  CORDIER,  Vol.  I,  p.  260)  says  concerning 
the  Tartar  (that  is,  Mongol)  customs  of  war,  "On  their  backs  they  wear  armor  of 
cuirbouly  [boiled  leather],  prepared  from  buffalo  and  other  hides,  which  is  very 
strong." 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  PLATE  ARMOR  267 

the  present  time  to  fix  a  date  for  these  antiquities  with  any  degree  of 
certainty ;  but  a  general  deduction  may  be  hazarded.  There  are  good 
reasons  for  assuming  that  the  Chinese  derived  their  iron  armor  from 
Turkish  and  Iranian  peoples, —  first,  because  their  knowledge  of  smelt- 
ing and  forging  iron  came  from  them;  and,  second,  because  their  own 
inventiveness  in  defensive  and  offensive  armor  was  rather  poor,  and  be- 
cause others  of  their  weapons,  like  swords  and  daggers,  were  adopted 
from  the  same  group  (p.  215).  The  sudden  appearance  of  iron  armor  in 
the  Later  Han  dynasty  speaks  in  favor  of  this  view;  and  as  only  copper 
plate  armor  was  known  in  the  preceding  period  of  the  Former  Han 
dynasty,  it  seems  very  likely  that  iron  armor  among  the  Turkish  tribes 
was  not  much  older  than  in  China.  As  previously  stated,  the  Su-she"n 
sent  iron  armor  along  with  skin  and  bone  armor  to  China,  but  only  the 
latter  two  types  formed  their  national  armor,  according  to  the  later  re- 
port of  the  Annals  of  the  Tsin  Dynasty.  The  occasional  introduction  of 
iron  armor,  consequently,  did  not  suppress  among  them  the  employment 
of  skin  and  bone  armor;  and  although  iron  armor  was  known  to  them  at 
the  end  of  the  third  century,  they  adhered,  for  several  centuries  down- 
ward, to  bone  and  hide,  that  seem  to  have  represented  a  more  efficient 
means  of  defence  at  that  time  than  iron  armor,  the  making  of  which 
must  still  have  been  in  a  primitive  and  experimental  stage.  On  the 
other  hand,  in  opposition  to  this  theory  of  a  foreign  influence,  it  must 
be  emphasized  that  the  culture  types  of  north-eastern  Asia,  on  the 
whole,  have  strong  and  pronounced  characteristics  which  have  hardly 
any  parallels  in  the  rest  of  the  Asiatic  world,  and  that  owing  to  geograph- 
ical conditions  the  entire  area  has  remained  purer  and  more  intact  from 
outside  currents  than  any  other  culture  group  in  Asia.  The  profound 
researches  of  Bogoras  and  Jochelson  have  shown  us  that  in  language, 
folk-lore,  religion,  and  material  culture,  the  affinities  of  the  Chukchi, 
Koryak,  Yukagir,  and  Kamchadal  go  with  Americans,  not  with  Asiatics. 
In  fact,  Turkish-Mongol  influence  on  these  tribes  is  exceedingly  small; 
Chinese  influence,  if  any,  amounts  to  a  minimum ; l  and  the  alleged  Japa- 

1  While  the  Chinese,  owing  to  political  circumstances,  were  comparatively  well 
acquainted  with  the  tribes  inhabiting  Manchuria,  Korea,  and  the  Amur  region,  their 
knowledge  of  the  tribes  beyond  has  always  been  very  limited.  Their  first  acquaint- 
ance with  the  Ainu  dates  from  the  year  659  A.p.,  when  some  members  of  this  tribe 
accompanying  a  Japanese  embassy  made  their  appearance  at  the  Court  of  the 
Emperor  Kao-tsung  (650-683)  of  the  T'ang  dynasty;  they  are  described  on  this 
occasion  as  "forming  a  small  country  on  an  island  in  the  ocean,  having  beards  four 
feet  long,  being  clever  archers,  and  sticking  arrows  through  their  hair;  they  have  a 
man  hold  an  arrow  (according  to  another  reading,  a  vessel)  which  they  use  as  a  tar- 
get at  a  distance  of  ten  paces,  without  missing  their  aim "  (Tang  shu,  Ch.  220,  p.  1 1 ; 
and  Yen  kien  lei  han,  Ch.  231,  p.  47).  They  are  called  by  their  Japanese  name 
Yemishi  (Chinese,  Hia-i).  This  embassy  is  mentioned  under  the  same  year  also 
in  the  Japanese  Nihongi  (AsTON,  Nihongi,  Vol.  II,  p.  260),  where  it  is  said  that  the 


268  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

nese  influence  is  a  chimera.  Plate  armor,  if  due  in  that  region  to  a 
stimulus  received  from  outside,  would  represent  a  somewhat  isolated 
instance  of  historical  contact  in  the  line  of  warfare;1  and  whatever  the 
psychology  of  this  first  stimulus  may  have  been,  —  I  venture  to  deny 
that  it  ever  operated  in  the  haphazard  and  purely  external  manner 
indicated  by  Ratzel  and  Hough, — a  certain  independent  course  of 
development  in  that  area  cannot  be  absolutely  denied. 

While  I  am  very  far  from  contesting  that  historical  interrelations 
may  have  been  at  play  in  the  dissemination  of  the  plate  idea  in  north- 
eastern Asia,  I  wish  to  maintain  for  the  present  an  attitude  of  reserve 
toward  this  point.  The  downright  failure  of  the  Japanese  hypothesis 
should  put  us  on  our  guard;  and,  the  imitation  theory,  I  confess,  be  it 
formulated  with  reference  to  the  Japanese,  Chinese,  or  Siberians,  does 
not  strike  me  very  favorably.  Whatever  we  may  now  be  inclined  to 
assume  in  that  direction,  it  will  remain  mere  assumption  in  our  present 
state  of  knowledge;  and  it  must  be  upheld  that  no  imitation  theory, 
with  whatever  modifications,  can  be  backed  up  by  certain  facts.  In 
other  words,  the  problem  is  not  yet  susceptible  of  a  definite  solution. 
There  is,  however,  not  only  an  historical,  but  also  a  technical  side  to 
this  question,  and  we  should  not  entirely  lose  sight  of  the  technical 
point.  We  observe  in  various  culture-groups  that  plate  armor  is  never 
a  primary  type  of  armor,  but  occupies  a  secondary  place  in  point  of 


Japanese  took  with  them  a  Yemishi  man  and  woman  of  Michinoku  to  show  to  the 
T'ang  Emperor.  In  the  Description  of  the  Tributary  Nations  of  the  Ts'ing  Dynasty 
(Huang  Ts'ing  chi  kung  t'u,  Ch.  3),  published  under  the  patronage  of  the  Emperor 
K'ien-lung,  the  Ainu  are  figured  and  briefly  characterized  under  the  name  K'u-ye. 
This  is  the  Gilyak  designation  Kuhi  for  the  Ainu,  identical  with  the  Huye  of  Du 
HALDE  (Description  de  1'empire  de  la  Chine,  Vol.  IV,  p.  15;  compare  also  L.  v. 
SCHRENCK,  Reisen  und  Forschungen,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  129).  On  some  Chinese  maps 
Saghalin  is  still  designated  as  "Island  of  K'u-ye."  The  Gilyak  came  to  the  notice  of 
the  Chinese  at  a  very  late  date;  they  do  not  seem  to  be  mentioned  earlier  than  in  the 
Se  w$n  hien  t'ung  k'ao  (published  in  1586)  under  the  name  Ki  (or  K'i)-li-mi  (Gilami), 
the  name  given  this  people  by  its  Tungusian  neighbors  (compare  A.  WYLIE,  Chinese 
Researches,  pt.  3,  p.  249,  who  alludes  to  this  passage  without  identifying  the  tribe). 
In  the  Chinese  work  previously  quoted,  the  Gilyak  are  pictured  and  described  under 
the  term  Fei-ya-k'a  as  inhabiting  the  country  to  the  extreme  east  of  the  Sungari, 
the  littoral  of  the  ocean,  and  scattered  over  the  islands  (compare  L.  v.  SCHRENCK, 
/.  c.,  pp.  100-103). 

1 A  very  interesting  case  was  established  by  FRANZ  BOAS  in  his  study  Property 
Marks  of  Alaskan  Eskimo  (American  Anthropologist,  1899,  pp.  601-613).  Property 
marks  are  very  frequently  used  by  these  tribes  on  weapons  employed  in  hunting  with 
the  object  of  securing  property-right  in  the  animal  in  whose  body  the  weapon  bearing 
the  mark  is  found.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  these  mjarks  occur  only  among  the 
Eskimo  tribes  of  Alaska,  but  are  not  known  from  any  other  Eskimo  tribe.  This 
fact,  taken  in  connection  with  the  form  and  occurrence  of  such  marks  among  the 
north-eastern  tribes  of  Asia,  suggests  to  Boas  that  this  custom,  like  so  many  other 
peculiarities  of  Alaskan  Eskimo  life,  may  be  due  to  contact  with  Asiatic  tribes. 
This  case  is  very  plausible,  and  would  merit  a  more  profound  historical  investigation 
in  connection  with  the  practice  of  tamga  now  disseminated  throughout  Siberia. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  PLATE  ARMOR  269 

time;  it  is  always  preceded  by  plainer  types,  usually  cuirasses  of  hide  or 
cotton,  and  scale  armor.  Cuirasses  of  rhinoceros-skin  were  utilized 
in  China  for  thousands  of  years,  before  any  metal  harness  became 
known.  In  China  as  well  as  in  Egypt  we  clearly  recognize  the  inter- 
mediary stages  of  hide  and  plate  armor,  the  surface  of  the  hide  being 
first  reinforced  by  irregular,  scale-like  metal  pieces  (first  of  copper, 
later  of  iron),  which  gradually  assumed  the  standard  rectangular  plate 
shape;  and  then,  by  removing  the  hide  foundation,  the  pure  metal 
plate  armor  sprang  up  as  a  new  and  independent  type.  The  history  of 
defensive  and  offensive  weapons,  moreover,  is  closely  interrelated;  the 
eternal  game  of  modern  war  industry  —  first  inventing  bullet-proof 
naval  armor-plates,  and  then  the  bullets  to  pierce  them  —  was  in  full 
swing  even  in  the  stages  of  primitive  life.  The  growing  perfection  of 
metal  weapons  constantly  forced  man  to  devise  new  means  of  increasing 
the  power  of  his  defensive  armor,  and  this  accounts  for  the  coming  into 
existence  of  ever-varying  new  types.  I  am  certainly  not  competent 
on  any  subject  of  American  ethnology,  and  must  leave  it  to  our  Ameri- 
canists to  reason  out  the  case  for  themselves.  But  this  much  may  be 
said.  Nearly  everywhere  in  North  America,  even  in  the  eastern  area, 
we  generally  find  the  type  of  hide  armor,  the  indigenous  development  of 
which  is  admitted  by  Dr.  Hough  and  cannot  seriously  be  challenged; 
thus  hide  armor  may  have  been  the  oldest  form  of  body  protection  in 
war  also  in  this  region.1  We  meet  there  also  the  intermediary  stages, 
as,  for  instance,  the  wooden  cuirass  of  the  Thompson  River  Indians, 
covered  with  elk-hide,  described  by  JAMES  TEiT,2  and  the  application  of 
wooden  slats,  of  reeds,  of  bone  plates  to  the  exterior  or  interior  of  the 
cuirass,  to  strengthen  it  more  efficiently, — the  secondary  development. 
Finally  those  materials  were  exclusively  utilized  in  its  construction, 
leading  up  to  pure  plate  armor  as  a  tertiary  and  ultimate  stage.  No 
fundamental  difference  can  be  found  in  the  employment  of  wood  and 
bone,  or  ivory,  which  simply  present  purely  technical  changes  of  mate- 
rial; and  American-Asiatic  bone  plate  armor,  after  all,  might  be  con- 
ceived as  quite  a  natural  development,  which  may  have  arisen  inde- 
pendently, without  the  contact  of  an  outside  culture.  Its  coming  into 
existence  could  be  explained  by  the  trend  of  indigenous  thought  and  the 


1  "The  American  savages  were  acquainted  with  body  armor  when  they  were 
first  encountered.  Wherever  the  elk,  the  moose,  the  buffalo,  and  other  great  land 
mammals  abounded,  there  it  was  possible  to  cover  the  body  with  an  impervious  suit 
of  raw- hide"  (O.  T.  MASON,  The  Origins  of  Invention,  p.  390). 


*  The  Thompson  Indians  of  British  Columbia  (Jesup  North  Pacific  Expedition, 
..  II,  p.  265).    See  also  A.  P.  NIBLACK,  The  Coas 
(Report  U.  S.  National  Museum,  1888,  pp.  268-270). 


Vol.  II,  p.  265).    See  also  A.  P.  NIBLACK,  The  Coast  Indians  of  Southern  Alaska 


270  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

inventiveness  of  the  aborigines,  which  may  have  resulted  in  a  large 
variety  of  ingenious  armor  spread  over  an  extensive  area.1 

There  remain  other  considerations  to  be  made  which  would  seem  to 
confirm  this  impression.  The  cut,  the  style,  and  the  mode  of  wearing 
armor  in  the  North-Pacific  region  are  different  from  those  in  eastern 
Asia.  The  peculiar  Chukchi  fashion  of  having  the  left  side  covered  up 
and  the  left  arm  and  hand  hidden  in  the  armor,  while  only  the  right  arm 
remains  free  for  action,2  is  a  striking  feature,  which  is  entirely  lacking 
in  any  other  part  of  Asia.  At  any  rate,  I  am  inclined  toward  the  opinion 
that  the  type  of  bone  plate  armor  under  consideration  is  not  exclusively 
due  to  an  impact  of  foreign  influence.  In  some  form  unknown  to  us  it 
may  have  pre-existed,  before  any  metal  plate  armor  had  reached  the 
Far  East ;  while  I  am  quite  willing  to  admit  that  at  some  later  period 
the  regular,  rectangular  shapes  of  the  ivory  plates,  and  the  peculiar 
method  of  lashing  them  together,  may  be  the  outcome  of  an  adaptation 
to  some  imported  model. 

The  memorable  passage  in  the  Chinese  Annals  concerning  the  Su- 
sh&i  may  elucidate  still  another  problem.  Their  gifts  to  China  in  262 
consisted  not  only  of  bone  armor,  but  also  of  iron  armor.  BOGORAS  3 
has  shown  that  ancient  iron  armor,  made  of  small  pieces  of  iron  with 
fastenings  of  narrow  leather  strips,  was  until  recently  very  common 
among  the  Reindeer  Chukchi;  and  he  makes  it  probable  that  iron  was 
known  among  them  before  the  arrival  of  the  Russians.  And  here  the 
Su-she~n  come  again  to  our  assistance  in  dispelling  the  Japanese  spectre ; 
for  the  question  of  the  origin  and  manufacture  of  Chukchi  iron  armor 
suggests  to  Mr.  BOGORAS  "a  connection  with  the  Japanese  which  does 
not  exist  at  present," —  and  which  in  all  probability  has  never  existed. 
Mr.  BOGORAS  is  unable  to  furnish  any  evidence  for  such  an  alleged  inter- 
course, which  is  certainly  not  proved  by  the  occasional  occurrence  of  a 
modern  Japanese  article  of  trade  in  that  region.4  The  facts  in  the  case 

1 1  do  not  mean  to  say,  of  course,  that  the  development  has  actually  and  ob- 
jectively taken  place  that  way,  but  only  wish  to  point  out  that  it  may  be  thus 
construed  in  our  minds. 

2  HOUGH,  Plate  V;  BOGORAS,  The  Chukchee,  p.  163  (shows  also  a  suit  of  left- 
handed  iron  armor). 

»The  Chukchee  (Jesup  North  Pacific  Expedition,  Vol.  VII,  No.  I,  p.  54). 

4  The  statement  of  Bogoras  that  the  armor  and  helmet  figured  on  p.  164  are 
Japanese  seems  to  me  to  require  further  proof.  It  rather  conveys  the  impression  of 
being  un- Japanese.  Bogoras  alludes  to  the  advance  of  the  Japanese  to  Kamchatka 
without  citing  sources  in  support  of  this  opinion.  I  presume  he  must  have  had  in 
mind  the  passages  of  G.  W.  STELLER  (Beschreibung  von  dem  Lande  Kamtschatka, 
pp.  3,  249)  saying  that  the  Japanese  were  long  known  as  traders  to  the  inhabitants 
of  the  littoral  of  the  Okhotsk  Sea  (on  the  Kamchadal  name  of  the  Japanese,  see  L.  v. 
SCHRENCK,  /.  c.,  p.  192).  Kamchatka  was  vaguely  known  to  the  Japanese  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  as  we  see  from  KLAPROTH'S  Apercu  ge"n6ral  des  trois  royaumes 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  PLATE  ARMOR  271 

are  that  the  Japanese  never  have  penetrated  much  beyond  Saghalin 
Island,  where  the  southern  portion  inhabited  by  the  Ainu  was  their  main 
field  of  exploitation,  while  the  northern  part  remained  a  terra  incognita 
to  them.  The  Japanese  have  exerted  no  influence  on  the  culture  of  the 
Gilyak  settled  there,1  nor  is  there  any  Japanese  trace  on  the  mainland 
in  the  region  of  the  Amur.  Even  without  such  considerations,  how- 
ever, the  point  of  view  taken  by  Bogoras  in  this  matter  can  no  longer  be 
upheld.  The  fact  that  the  Su-she'n  possessed  knowledge  of  iron  armor 
in  262  goes  to  prove  that  iron  armor  around  that  time  was  within  the 
boundaries  of  the  North-Pacific  culture-zone.2  Again,  it  must  be  called 
to  mind  that  the.  Su-she'n  iron  armor  cannot  have  been  of  Japanese 
origin,  as  iron  armor  was  not  then  in  existence  in  Japan;  neither  can 
it  be  set  in  relation  with  Chinese  iron  armor,  as  it  would  be  absurd  to 
suppose  that  the  Su-she'n  should  have  sent  Chinese  iron  armor  as 
tribute  to  the  Chinese  Court.  Their  tribute  certainly  consisted  of 
curious  and  valuable  objects  which  were  new  and  impressive  to  the 
Chinese.  As  the  Su-she'n  were  not  able  to  make  iron  armor,  not  being 
acquainted  with  the  technique  of  smelting  and  forging  iron,  they  con- 
sequently must  have  received  it  in  the  channel  of  trade  from  an  iron- 
producing  region,  such  as  we  find  in  ancient  times  in  the  interior 
of  Siberia,  in  Central  Asia,3  and  in  the  beginning  of  our  era  also  in 

(p.  195,  Paris,  1832).  The  Italmen,  the  ancient  Kamchadal,  knew  the  Japanese 
chiefly  as  importers  of  iron  needles,  and  styled  these  Sis  (plural  Sisin:  I.  RADLINSKI, 
Slownik  narzecza  Kamczadal6w,  p.  72,  Cracow,  1892)  after  Sisam,  the  Ainu  designa- 
tion of  the  Japanese.  But  it  is  altogether  the  simple  question  of  a  superficial  trading 
relation  along  the  coast  by  way  of  the  Kuriles;  and  there  is  no  trace  of  Japanese 
influence  whatever  on  the  culture  of  the  Kamchadal. 

1  Likewise  L.  v.  SCHRENCK  (Reisen  und  Forschungen  im  Amur-Lande,  Vol.  Ill, 
P-  570). 

*  This  chapter,  as  it  now  stands,  was  in  substance  written  in  the  autumn  of  1912, 
an  abstract  of  it  having  been  read  at  the  meeting  of  the  American  Anthropological 
Association  held  in  Cleveland,  December,  1912  (see  Science,  1913,  p.  342,  or  Am. 
Anthr.,  1913,  p.  960).  A  confirmation  of  the  above  conclusion  is  now  furnished  by  the 
highly  interesting  study  of  R.  and  K.  TORII  (I.  c.,  p.  72),  who  found  in  eastern  Mon- 
golia a  metal  (seemingly  iron)  plate  of  an  armor  (4  x  2.5  cm)  with  four  apertures  in 
the  long  sides.  It  is  correctly  diagnosed  by  the  two  Japanese  authors,  who  remark 
that  such  plates  are  now  dispersed  among  the  ruins  left  by  the  Tung  Hu  ["Eastern 
Hu,"  a  general  Chinese  designation  for  the  populace  of  eastern  Siberia],  especially  in 
the  region  of  the  Shira  Muren.  This  archaeological  discovery  bears  out  the  fact 
that  iron  armor  anciently  did  exist  in  eastern  Siberia,  and  that  it  was  of  the  type  of 
plate  armor.  Thus  the  supposition  is  gaining  ground  that  the  iron  harness  in  the 
possession  of  the  Su-shen  was  iron  plate  armor,  and  existed  in  that  region  side  by 
side  with  bone  plate  armor.  Messrs.  Torii,  in  this  connection,  remind  us  of  the  fact 
that  the  Wu-huan,  according  to  the  Annals  of  the  Later  Han  Dynasty,  are  capable  of 
making  their  bows  and  arrows,  also  saddlery,  and  turn  out  their  own  arms  from 
forged  iron. 

1  It  is  known  that  L.  v.  SCHRENCK  (/.  c.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  569)  attributes  to  Japanese 
influence  the  knowledge  of  iron-forging  among  the  Ainu  and  Gilyak.  This  being  an 
affair  of  recent  origin  is  certainly  not  a  serious  case;  these  tribes  purchase  Japanese 
pig-iron,  and  work  it  up  into  blades  for  knives.  Schrenck's  point  of  view  that  iron- 


272  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

Korea.1  These  considerations  are  instructive  also  in  that  they  reveal  the 
baselessness  of  what  might  be  styled  "the  Japanese  mirage  of  American 
ethnology."  Not  only  objects  of  material  culture  like  plate  armor,  but 
also  motives  of  myth  and  legend,  have  been  traced  from  America  directly 
to  Japan,  as,  for  instance,  by  the  late  PAUL  EmiENREiCH.2  This  method 
seems  to  me  inadequate  for  historical  reasons.  The  primeval  culture 
type  of  Japan,  as  we  know  it,  is  a  comparatively  recent  production, 
very  recent  when  contrasted  with  the  great  centres  of  culture  developed 
on  the  mainland  of  Asia,  and  recent  even  in  comparison  with  all  in- 
digenous cultures  found  on  the  American  Continent.  I  mean  to  say 
that  most  phenomena  of  culture,  inclusive  of  myth  and  religion,  are  by 
far  older  on  this  continent,  and  still  preserved  in  an  older  form,  than  any 
corresponding  phenomena  in  Japanese  culture,  even  if  the  latter  are 
reduced  to  their  oldest  attainable  condition.  The  Kojiki  and  Nihongi, 
the  main  text-books  of  Japanese  mythology,  do  not  present  a  pure  source 
of  genuine  Japanese  thought,  but  are  retrospective  records  largely 
written  under  Chinese  and  Korean  influence,  and  echoing  in  a  bewilder- 
ing medley  continental-Asiatic  and  Malayo-Polynesian  traditions. 
But  more  than  that, — it  may  be  safely  stated  at  the  present  time  that 
the  history  of  American  cultures  has  never  had,  and  never  could  have 
had,  any  relation  with  Japan,  which  always  was  beyond  the  pale  of 
American-Asiatic  relations,  and  that  American  ethnology  offers  no 
point  of  contact  with  Japan.  The  threads  of  historical  connection  run- 
ning from  America  into  Asia  do  not  terminate  in  Japan,  but  first  .of  all, 
as  far  as  the  times  of  antiquity  are  concerned,  in  a  territory  which  may 
be  defined  as  the  northern  parts  of  modern  Manchuria  and  Korea. 
From  ancient  times  the  varied  population  of  this  region  has  shared  to 
some  extent  in  the  cultural  elements  which  go  to  make  up  the  character- 
forging  among  the  Gold  on  the  Amur  is  due  to  the  adjoining  Manchu-Chinese,  how- 
ever, is  entirely  erroneous,  as  this  art  doubtless  is  much  older  in  that  region  than  the 
rule  and  influence  of  the  Manchu,  and  points  decidedly  in  the  direction  of  the  Turkish 
Yakut.  Many  iron  objects  of  an  ornamental  character  in  use  among  the  Gold  can 
be  plainly  recognized  as  Yakutan  in  origin,  and  Yakut  are  constantly  living  and  trad- 
ing in  their  midst.  Neither  the  Japanese  nor  the  Chinese  need  be  invoked  to  explain 
iron-forging  in  eastern  and  north-eastern  Siberia,  as  it  is  much  older  in  the  interior 
of  Siberia,  where  there  have  been  at  all  times  better  blacksmiths,  forging  better 
iron-work  than  was  ever  turned  out  in  China. 

1  The  Annals  of  the  Later  Han  Dynasty  (Hou  Han  shu,  Ch.  115,  p.  5  b)  relate 
that  the  country  Shen-han  in  Korea  produced  iron,  that  the  Wei,  Wo  (Japanese) 
and  Ma-han  went  there  to  purchase  it  on  the  market,  and  that  iron  was  the  means 
of  barter  in  all  business  transactions.  There  was  no  iron  in  the  country  of  the  Shi- 
wei,  and  they  received  it  from  Korea  in  exchange  for  sable-skins  (Pei  shi,  Ch.  94, 
p.  9  b) .  The  considerable  beds  of  iron  ore  in  Kang- wun  Province  are  still  worked  by  the 
natives,  who  scrape  it  up  from  the  surface  of  the  ground,  and  smelt  it  in  furnaces  by 
means  of  charcoal  (H.  B.  HULBERT,  The  Passing  of  Korea,  p.  274). 

1  Die  Mythen  und  Legenden  der  sudamerikanischen  Urvolker,  pp.  77  et  seq. 
(Berlin,  1905). 


THE  PROBLEM  or  PLATE  ARMOR  273 

istics  of  the  North-Pacific  culture-province.  It  does  not  suffice  for  the 
study  of  American-Asiatic  relations  to  take  into  consideration  only  the 
present  ethnological  conditions,  as  has  been  done,  but  the  ancient 
ethnology  .of  that  region  must  first  be  reconstructed.  From  this  point, 
the  further  contact,  if  any,  may  be  given,  and  as  our  knowledge  advances, 
may  eventually  be  established  at  a  future  date  (I  speak  only  hypo- 
thetically)  with  ancient  China  on  the  one  hand,  and  ancient  Siberia  on 
the  other, — relations  which  would  all  refer  to  pre- Japanese  times,  and 
move  outside  of  the  current  of  Japan.  The  early  existence  of  bone 
armor  is  one  of  the  examples  proving  that  this  view  seems  to  be  on  the 
right  track,  and  entitling  us  to  speak  of  an  historic  antiquity  in  North- 
Pacific  culture. 

A  pragmatic  history  of  the  development  of  plate  armor  cannot  yet 
be  written,  as  the  subject  has  not  been  thoroughly  investigated  by 
specialists  in  the  antiquity  of  western  Asia,  and  as  there  are  doubtless 
many  missing  links  still  unknown  to  us.  Meanwhile  the  following  in- 
dications which  I  have  been  able  to  trace  may  be  welcome. 

In  Assyria,  plate  armor  is  unmistakably  represented  on  monuments 
of  King  Sargon  (B.C.  722-705)  in  connection  with  foot-archers,  whose 
coats  consist  of  six  or  seven  parallel  rows  of  small  rectangular  plates.1 
It  seems  that  in  Assyria  plate  mail  sprang  up  during  that  period,  for 
in  the  reign  of  Salmanassar  II  (B.C.  860-825)  the  bowmen  sculptured  in 
stone  are  frequently  clad  with  long  coats  reaching  from  the  neck  to  the 
ankles  and  girdled  below  the  chest,  the  coats  being  covered  with  an 
irregular  checkered  design,  but  not  with  rows  of  rectangles.2  Further, 
we  find  metal  plate  armor  in  ancient  Egypt;3  there  a  cuirass  of  thickly 
wadded  material  was  covered  with  metal  plates.  It  is  ascribed  to  the 
reign  of  Ramses  II,  who  ruled  in  the  thirteenth  century  B.C. 

Also  the  Shardana  armor  described  by  OHNEFALSCH-RiCHTER4— 
consisting  of  bronze  plates,  two  of  which  are  mutually  joined  by  means 


1  P.  S.  P.  HANDCOCK  (Mesopotamian  Archaeology,  pp.  350-2),  who  speaks  only 
of  coats  of  mail. 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  260,  350. 

*  An  illustration  of  it  may  be  seen  in  A.  ERMAN'S  Life  in  Ancient  Egypt  (p.  545, 
London,  1894).  As  a  rule,  the  helmet  and  body  armor  did  not  consist  there  of  metal, 
being  more  probably  made,  as  many  of  the  pictures  seem  to  indicate,  of  thickly  wad- 
ded material,  such  as  is  worn  even  now  in  the  Sudan,  and  forms  an  excellent  protec- 
tion. In  rare  instances,  however,  defensive  armor  may  have  been  covered  with 
metal  plates.  No  special  investigation  of  this  subject  has  as  vet  been  made  in  regard 
to  the  two  culture  zones  of  Assyria  and  Egypt;  but  these  indications,  however  brief, 
will  suffice  to  show  that  plate  armor  must  have  been  widely  distributed  in  ancient 
times,  and  that  a  mere  consideration  of  present  conditions  alone,  as  attempted  by 
Ratzel  and  Hough,  cannot  bring  about  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  its  history. 

4  Zeitschrift  fur  Ethnologic,  Vol.  XXXI,  1899  (Verhandlungen,  p.  360). 


274  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

of  hinges,  and  sewed  to  a  foundation  of  linen  or  leather  —  evidently 
belongs  to  this  category. 

The  most  valuable  contribution  to  the  question  is  presented  by  a 
number  of  single  bone  plates  of  rectangular  shapes,  found  in  barrows 
about  Popovka  on  the  Sula  in  southern  Russia.  Five  of  such  plates 
are  reproduced  by  E.  H.  MiNNS.1  As  these  have  perforations  (one, 
two,  or  three)  only  at  the  top  and  base,  we  must  suppose  that  they  were 
sewed  on  to  a  foundation  of  cloth  or  leather;  they  could  not  have  been 
lashed  together  freely  without  such  a  background,  as  in  the  Chukchi  and 
Eskimo  plate  armors  discussed  above.2  Those  with  pointed  top  and  a 
single  perforation,  having  the  one  side  curved  and  the  other  straight, 
formed  the  ends  of  a  plate-row.  This  find  attests  the  fact  that  bone 
plate  armor  anciently  existed  in  the  western  part  of  the  Old  World 
among  Scythian  tribes;  and  this  case  shows  that  in  regard  to  Northeast- 
Asiatic  and  American  bone  plate  armor  we  need  not  resort  to  the  theory 
of  explaining  it  as  an  imitation  of  iron  in  bone.  If  imitation  it  is,  it 
may  have  been  Scythian  (or  Siberian)  bone  armor  (a  single  piece  or 
several) ,  which  by  trade  found  its  way  to  north-eastern  Asia.  In  the 
territory  of  the  Scythians  we  find  plate  armor  not  only  of  bone  and  horn, 
but  also  of  bronze  and  iron;  and  it  seems  to  me  that  the  adoption,  on 
the  part  of  the  Scythians,  of  the  Iranian  tactics  of  cataphracti  (p.  220) 
gave  the  impetus  to  the  introduction  among  them  of  this  type  of  armor. 
The  rock-carving  of  the  mounted  lancer  on  the  Yenisei  (Fig.  35)  demon- 
strates that  plate  armor,  presumably  of  iron,  had  penetrated  into  Siberia 
during  the  iron  age.  I  suspect  the  institution  of  cataphracti  of  being 
largely  responsible  for  the  wide  dissemination  of  this  type  of  armor;  it 
was  peculiarly  adapted  to  fighting  on  horseback,  and  the  Iranian  mode 
of  tactics,  as  we  saw  in  Chapter  III,  expanded  into  the  Roman  Empire, 
and  was  adopted  by  the  Huns,  to  be  continued  by  the  Turks  (T'u-kue) 
under  the  T'ang  dynasty.  When  tactics  and  cavalry  organization 
spread  over  the  boundaries  of  Iran,  the  armature  of  the  cavaliers  was 
necessarily  bound  to  migrate  along  the  same  path. 

The  fresco  paintings  discovered  in  Turkistan  furnish  many  valuable 
contributions  to  the  history  of  body  armor,  and  particularly  of  plate 
armor.  A.  STEIN  3  was  the  first  to  correctly  recognize  this  type  of  armor 
in  a  Buddhist  statue  excavated  by  him  at  Dandan-Uiliq.  The  figure, 
standing  over  the  body  of  a  prostrate  foe,  is  clothed  with  a  coat  of  mail 
reaching  below  the  knees  and  elaborately  decorated.  "The  gay  colors 

1  Scythians  and  Greeks,  p.  188  (Cambridge,  1913). 

2  In  these,  perforations  likewise  run  along  the  long  or  vertical  sides  of  the  plates. 

3  Sand-buried  Ruins  of  Khotan,  p.  272  (London,  1904);  and  Ancient  Khotan, 
Vol  I,  p.  252,  Vol.  II,  Plate  II  (Oxford,  1907). 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  PLATE  ARMOR  275 

of  the  successive  rows  of  small  plates  which  form  the  mail,  alternately 
red-blue  and  red-green,  were  remarkably  well  preserved,  and  not  less 
so  all  the  details  of  the  ornaments  which  are  shown  along  the  front  and 
lower  edge  of  the  coat  and  on  the  girdle  around  the  waist.  Even  the 
arrangement  of  the  rivets  which  join  the  plates  of  mail,  and  the  folds 
of  the  garment  protruding  below  the  armor,  are  indicated  with  great 
accuracy.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  artist  has  carefully  re- 
produced here  details  of  armor  and  dress,  with  which  he  was  familiar 
from  his  own  times."  l 

A  rich  material  for  the  study  of  plate  mail  in  the  art  of  Turkistan  is 
offered  by  the  fascinating  work  of  A.  GRUNWEDEL,*  who  himself  has 
clearly  recognized  and  pointed  out  this  armor  type.3  The  fact  that  the 
plates  are  painted  blue  clearly  proves  that  they  were  wrought  from 
iron.  The  coats  are  tight-fitting,  and  open  in  front;  the  sleeves  are 
likewise  bedecked  with  plates,  and  the  shoulders  with  pauldrons.  A 
further  example  will  be  found  in  the  work  of  A.  v.  LE  Coq.4 

The  T'ang  period  (618-906)  is  responsible  in  China  for  a  far-reaching 
innovation  in  the  line  of  armor,  which  has  persisted  at  least  down  to  the 
end  of  the  eighteenth  century, —  the  combination  of  armor  with  the 
military  uniform,  resulting  in  a  complete  armor-costume.  Up  to  that 
time,  armor  and  garment  had  been  distinct  and  separate  affairs.  The 
ancient  hide  harnesses  were  worn  over  the  ordinary  clothing  or  uniform, 
and  were  naturally  put  on  only  when  making  ready  for  battle;  while 


1  The  comparison  made  by  Stein  (Ancient  Khotan,  p.  252)  between  this  armor 
and  that  on  a  Gandhara  relief  figured  by  GR^NWEDEL  (Buddhist  Art  of  India, 
p.  96)  is  not  to  the  point.  The  two  suits  of  armor  are  of  entirely  different  types,  the 
former  being  plate  armor;  the  latter,  as  correctly  interpreted  by  Grunwedel,  scale 
armor.  Stein  did  not  recognize  this  difference,  nor  did  V.  A.  SMITH  (History  of  Fine 
Art  in  India,  p.  122),  who  copied  him  on  this  point.  Among  the  finds  made  by  A. 
Stein  (Ancient  Khotan,  pp.  374,  411)  at  Niya,  there  is  a  single  piece  of  hard,  green 
leather,  shaped  and  perforated  very  much  like  the  metal  plate  of  an  armor.  Stein 
suggests  that  "it  probably  belonged  to  a  scale  armor"  (he  means  plate  armor),  and 
thinks  that  this  supposition  is  confirmed  by  the  metal  plates  of  an  armor  coming  from 
Tibet  (p.  xvi).  This  is  possible;  I  do  not  believe,  however,  that  an  entire  suit  of 
armor  was  ever  made  in  Turkistan  in  this  manner,  but  that  only  certain  parts  of  an 
armor  suit  were  of  this  technique.  There  would  be  no  sense  in  producing  a  complete 
suit  by  means  of  such  separate  leather  laminae, — a  very  toilsome  and  cumbrous 
process;  any  plain  hide  coat  would  probably  present  a  more  enduring  protection 
than  such  an  affair.  Indeed,  this  technique  is  known  to  us  from  Japan:  thus  a 
shoulder-guard  believed  to  date  from  prior  to  1 100  (BASHFORD  DEAN,  Catalogue  of  the 
Loan  Collection  of  Japanese  Armor,  Fig.  12  B)  is  made  from  bands  of  laminae  of 
boiled  leather  interlaced  with  rawhide.  Leather  laminae,  of  course,  do  not  present 
any  original  state,  but  are  a  secondary  development,  being  the  outcome  of  an  imita- 
tion of  metal  laminae. 

1  Altbuddhistische  Kultstatten  in  Chinesisch-Turkistan  (Berlin,  1912). 

1  L.  c.,  p.  201,  and  Figs.  451,  452,  456,  460,  512,  513,  628. 

4  Chotscho,  Plate  48  (Berlin,  1913). 


276  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

during  the  march  they  were  rolled  up  and  carried. l  Scale,  chain,  ring, 
and  plate  armor  were  all  a  great  burden  on  the  body  owing  to  their 
heavy  weight,  and  a  serious  obstacle  to  the  mobility  of  troops.  The 
reform  is  attributed  to  Ma  Sui,  who  was  president  of  the  Board  of  War 
under  the  Emperor  T'ai-tsung  of  the  T'ang  dynasty,  and  who  died  in 
796.2  He  conceived  the  idea  of  combining  armor  with  the  costume 
(styled  k'ai  i,  "armor  clothing")  in  three  grades  differentiated  according 
to  length;  and  the  soldiers  thus  clad  were  enabled  to  run,  and  to  advance 
comfortably.  The  helmets  he  made  in  the  form  of  lions.3  This  in- 
novation is  illustrated  by  an  interesting  passage  in  the  Ch'u  hio  ki, 4 
where  some  new  names  for  the  parts  of  armor  are  given,  derived  from 
the  names  of  clothing.  "The  skirt  attached  to  the  armor  is  called 
shang  (No.  9734,  "the  clothes  in  the  lower  parts  of  the  body");  the 
inner  side  of  an  armor  is  styled  lei  (No.  6843)  ;5  and  the  coat  of  the  armor 
(kia  i,  No.  5385)  is  termed  kao  (No.  5949)."  6  The  general  expression 
for  clothing,  i-shang,  finds  here  application  to  armor:  the  upper  portion 
of  the  armor  is  directly  styled  i  ("upper  clothing"),  and  the  term  kao 
used  with  reference  to  it  plainly  indicates  that  a  robe  made  of  some 
textile  material  was  worn  over  the  mail  to  cover  it  all  round. 

This  state  of  affairs  is  confirmed  by  the  Wan  hua  ku,7  where,  besides 
cuirasses  and  six  kinds  of  iron  suits,  are  enumerated  armor  made  from 
white  cotton  stuff  (pai  pu  kia),  that  made  of  black  silk  taffeta  (tsao 
chiian  kia),  and  even  wooden  armor  (mu  kia).8 

1  As  expressly  stated  by  Sun-tse  (see  L.  GILES,  Sun  Tzu  on  the  Art  of  War,  p.  58, 
London,  1910). 

2  GILES,  Biographical  Dictionary,  p.  569. 

3  T'ang  shu,  Ch.  155,  p.  i  b. 

4  Compiled  by  Su  Kien  in  the  early  part  of  the  eighth  century  (BRETSCHNEIDER, 
Botanicon  Sinicum,  pt.  I,  p.  143,  No.  76). 

5  COUVREUR  (p.  473  c)  explains  this  word  as  mailles  d'une  cuirasse. 

5  Ordinarily  "a  quiver,"  but  originally  a  case  to  place  any  arms  in;  hence  COU- 
VREUR (p.  304  a)  enveloppe  de  cuirasse,  de  bouclier,  de  lance  (see  p.  176).  In  the  above 
case,  the  costume  worn  over  the  armor  is  thus  called,  because,  like  a  case,  it  envelops 
the  armor. 

7  See  above,  p.  196. 

8  Wooden  armor  existed  perhaps  under  the  Later  Han  dynasty,  though  alluded 
to  only  in  a  metaphorical  sense.     In  the  Chapter  Wu  king  chi  (Hou  Han  shu),  ice- 
crusts  covering  trees  (mu  ping)  are  likened  to  wooden  armor  (mu  kiai) ;  and  the  com- 
mentary explains  kiai  as  symbolizing  military  armor  (P'ei  wdn  yunfu,  Ch.  69,  p.  42) ; 
thus  the  existence  of  wooden  armor  at  that  time  might  be  presupposed  as  being  in- 
strumental in  this  comparison.     "Wooden  armor"  can  be  nothing  but  wooden  slat 
armor,  as  described  by  W.  HOUGH  (Primitive  American  Armor,  /.  c.t  pp.  632,  636) 
among  the  North- American  Indians.    Another  type  is  presented  by  the  wooden  armor 
of  the  Thompson  Indians  described  by  JAMES  TEIT  (The  Thompson  Indians  of 
British  Columbia,  Jesup  North  Pacific  Expedition,  Vol.  II,  p.  265)  as  consisting  of 
four  boards  an  inch  and  a  half  thick,  two  for  the  front  and  two  for  the  back,  which 
reached  from  the  collar-bone  to  the  hip-bone;  these  boards  were  laced  together  with 
buckskin,  and  the  whole  covered  with  thick  elk-hide;  while  the  same  tribe  made  also 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  PLATE  ARMOR  277 

We  do  not  know  from  the  literary  records  how  the  armor  credited 
to  Ma  Sui  was  constructed  in  detail ;  but  it  was  doubtless  the  forerunner 
of  the  armor-costumes,  as  we  find  them  duly  sanctioned  by  the  emperors 
of  the  Sung,  Ming,  and  Manchu  dynasties;  those,  in  my  opinion,  go  back 
to  types  established  in  the  T'ang  period.  Ma  Sui's  invention  was  a 
coat  of  cotton  or  silk,  the  exterior  or  interior  of  which  was  covered  with 
rows  of  small  iron  or  steel  plates.  Indeed,  plate  mail  is  well  represented 
on  Chinese  clay  statuettes  of  the  T'ang  period,  in  accordance  with  what 
we  find  in  the  art  of  Turkistan.  The  nearest  approach  to  Ma  Sui's 
contrivance  may  be  recognized  in  the  clay  figure  of  a  soldier  (five  of 
these  are  in  our  collection)  on  Plate  XXX.  These  figures  coming  from 
graves  of  Shen-si  Province  are  clad  with  an  ordinary  long-sleeved  coat; 
in  front  and  back,  over  the  chest,  and  along  the  lower  edge,  we  notice  a 
row  of  plates  emerging.1  Plates,  accordingly,  strengthen  the  front  and 
back  of  the  coat,  and  are  covered  with  the  same  material  as  the  latter 
consists  of.  The  whole  affair  is  tightly  held  together  by  two  bands 
adorned  with  bosses. 

The  two  clay  figures  on  Plate  XXXI  represent  two  identical  speci- 
mens of  the  same  type  of  warrior,  coming  from  Shen-si  Province.  The 
left  hand,  which  is  raised  as  if  brandishing  a  weapon  (spear),  is  unfor- 
tunately broken  off  in  both  pieces.  The  expression  of  lively  motion  and 
the  quality  of  modelling  are  remarkable.  In  the  grim  faces  slightly 
bent  and  turned  sideways,  the  demoniacal  power  of  these  armored 
knights  watching  over  the  grave  is  well  represented.  The  helmet- 
mask  is  formed  by  a  bird's  head  with  a  strong  flavor  of  the  Indian 
Garuda;  a  horn  or  crest  in  the  centre  of  the  head  is  broken  off.  The 
well-developed  eyebrows  of  the  bird's  faces  terminate  in  spirals  arranged 
on  the  foreheads;  the  beak  is  strongly  curved;  the  interval  between  the 
eyes  is  filled  with  a  pigment  of  indigo.  The  helmet  covers  the  back  of 
the  head,  nape  and  chin.  A  shawl  is  elegantly  draped  around  the 
shoulders,  and  tied  in  a  knot  over  the  chest,  the  two  round  iron  breast- 
plates being  visible  beneath  it.  An  animal  head  is  brought  out  in  relief 
in  the  middle,  apparently  a  metal  clasp  holding  the  two  sheets  of  the 
armor  together.2  An  apron,  a  sort  of  undivided  braconniere,  consisting 
of  three  horizontal  rows 8  of  long,  rectangular  iron  plates  is  worn  over 

corselets  from  narrow  strips  of  wood  from  half  an  inch  to  an  inch  in  thickness  or  of 
rods,  going  entirely  around  the  body;  the  strips  of  wood  were  placed  vertically,  and 
laced  together  with  bark  strings;  such  vests  were  generally  covered  with  one  or  two 
thicknesses  of  elk-skin. 

1  Compare  Plate  XVIII. 

1  Sheet  armor  is  discussed  in  Chapter  VI. 

1  It  is  interesting  to  compare  it  with  the  clay  statuette  found  by  GR^NWEDEL, 
/.  c.t  Fig.  460. 


278 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


the  coat  (Plate  XXXI,  Fig.  i);  the  plates  are  distinctly  represented  by 
parallel  rows  of  lines  executed  in  black  ink  and  continued  on  the  back 
(Fig.  42) ;  the  lines  are  somewhat  rounded  at  the  top,  and  leave  no  doubt 
of  the  real  shape  of  these  armor-plates.  In  Fig.  2  of  the  same  Plate 
these  lines  are  omitted,  or  may  have  been  worn  out. 


FIG.  42. 
Back  of  Clay  Statuette  represented  on  Plate  xxxi,  Fig.  1. 

As  those  two  statuettes  represent  the  typical  armed  warriors  of 
Shen-si  Province,  so  the  pair  on  Plate  XXXII  illustrates  the  character- 
istic types  current  in  Ho-nan,  and  is  for  this  reason  inserted  here,  though 
not  vested  with  plate  armor.  Of  powerful  martial  appearance,  "armed 
at  point  exactly,  cap-a-pie,"  these  heroes  valiantly  lean  on  the  hilts  of 
their  straight  swords  resting  between  their  feet, —  not  dissimilar  to  a 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  PLATE  ARMOR  279 

mediaeval  Roland.  They  are  protected  by  iron  sheet  armor,1  over 
which  a  jerkin  is  thrown,  two  circular  spaces  being  cut  out  on  the 
thorax,  and  exposing  the  iron  plastrons  or  breastplates.  The  helmet 
envelops  the  occiput,  nape,  and  cheeks,  and  is  held  by  a  broad  leather 
mentonni£re.  The  baggy  trousers  are  fastened  with  garters  over  the 
upper  parts  of  the  thighs.  Many  of  these  figurines,  as  indicated  by  the 
remains  of  pigments,  must  originally  have  been  well  painted,  the  pig- 
ments being  spread  on  a  background  formed  by  a  thick  coating  of  white 
pipe-clay.2  In  the  two  figures  in  question,  judging  from  the  traces  of 
pigments,  the  helmet  was  colored  a  crimson-red,  the  face  pink,  the  eye- 
balls black,  and  likewise  the  big  mustache  with  turned-up  tips;  the 
breastplates  were  vermilion,  and  the  garment  surrounding  them  light 
green.  The  sleeves  on  the  upper  arms  are  still  decorated  with  parallel 
black  stripes;  those  on  the  lower  arms  are  painted  a  crimson  color,  the 
hands  pink.  Geometric  ornaments  that  are  but  partially  preserved  were 
painted  in  red  on  the  portion  of  the  coat  beneath  the  girdle. 

Plate  armor  is  met  also  on  contemporaneous  Chinese  sculpture 
in  stone.  There  is  in  the  Museum's  collection  a  marble  slab  dug  up 
in  the  environment  of  the  city  of  Hien-yang,  Shen-si  Province 
(Plate  XXXIII).  It  represents  a  mock-gate  which  denoted  the  en- 
trance to  a  tomb.  The  two  door-leaves  countersunk  in  the  slab  are 
divided  by  a  faint  line  in  the  centre,  and  kept  closed  by  means  of  a  bolt 
carved  in  relief.  On  each  leaf  is  delicately  traced  the  figure  of  a  guardian 
completely  armored  with  plate  mail,  and  holding  a  sword.  On  the 
lintel  two  phenixes  surrounded  by  rich  foliage  are  chiselled  out  in  flat 
relief. 

Plate  armor  was  officially  adopted  by  the  Sung  dynasty.  In  1134, 
the  Imperial  Armory  had  four  model  pieces  constructed,  which  were 
founded  on  the  principle  of  the  plate.  The  first  of  these,  an  armor  suit, 
consisted  of  1825  plates  (styled  ye,  "leaves,"  written  without  the  classi- 
fier 'metal')  polished  and  burnished  on  both  sides;  the  e"pauli6res 
(pauldrons)  were  protected  on  the  inner  side  by  504  plates;  each  of  these 
plates  weighed  one  fifth  of  an  ounce  plus  six  fen.  The  second,  also  a 
coat,  was  formed  of  332  plates,  each  plate  of  the  weight  of  two-fifths  of 
an  ounce  plus  seven  Jen.  The  third  piece,  a  lower  garment,  was  com- 
posed of  679  plates  of  the  shape  of  a  tail-feather  of  a  hawk,  each  plate 
weighing  two-fifths  of  an  ounce  plus  five  fen.  The  fourth  piece  was  a 
helmet  consisting  of  310  plates,  each  weighing  one-fifth  of  an  ounce 
plus  five  fen;  the  total  weight  of  the  helmet,  inclusive  of  its  appurte- 

1  See  Chapter  VI. 

2  The  same  process  is  applied  to  T'ang  pottery  vessels,  as  will  be  seen  in  Part  II. 


280  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

nances  sheltering  the  nape  and  the  forehead,  amounted  to  one  catty  and 
one  ounce.  The  leather  straps  wound  around  the  head  weighed  five 
catties,  twelve  ounces  and  a  trifle  more  than  a  half.  Each  suit  had  a 
weight  of  forty-nine  catties  and  twelve  ounces.  The  weight  of  an  armor 
naturally  depends  upon  the  weight  of  the  individual  wearer;  in  the  army, 
however,  concern  about  the  individual  would  not  be  feasible,  and  would 
incur  heavy  expense  as  well  as  waste  of  material.  It  was  therefore 
thought  advisable  to  reach  a  compromise,  and  to  standardize  the  weight 
of  the  armor  at  from  forty-five  to  fifty  catties,  with  the  strict  under- 
standing that  in  no  case  should  it  exceed  fifty  catties.1 

In  regard  to  the  Mongols,  we  mentioned  the  employment  of  hide  and 
hide  scale  armor  in  their  armies  (pp.  190, 197).  There  are  also  accounts 
to  the  effect  that  plate  mail  was  known  to  them.  In  the  earliest  Euro- 
pean document  regarding  the  Mongols,  written  by  MATTHEW  PARIS  under 
date  of  1240,  giving  the  first  description  of  this  new  people,  they  are 
described  as  "men  dressed  in  ox-hides,  armed  with  plates  of  iron,  .  .  . 
their  backs  unprotected,  their  breasts  covered  with  armor;"  their 
backs  remained  unprotected  so  that  they  could  not  flee.2  WILLIAM 
OF  RUBRUCK,  travelling  from  1253  to  1255,  makes  us  acquainted  with 
sundry  types  of  armor  in  use  among  the  Mongols,  —  the  haubergeon 
(chain  mail),  scale  hide  armor,  and  iron  plate  armor,  the  iron  plates 
being  introduced  from  Persia.3  But  the  Franciscan  Friar  John  of 
Pian  de  Carpine  (or  Latinized,  Piano  Carpini),  who  travelled  to  the 
Court  of  Kuyuk  Khan  (1245-47)  as  ambassador  of  Pope  Innocent  IV, 
is  that  mediaeval  writer  who  has  left  to  us  the  clearest  and  most 
complete  description  of  Mongol  plate  armor.  At  the  same  time  he  is 
the  first  European  author  to  give  any  description  of  Eastern  plate 
armor  at  all.  In  his  "Libellus  historicus"  (Cap.  XVII)  4  he  describes 
the  defensive  armor  of  the  Mongols,  and  states  that  the  upper  part  of 
their  helmet  is  of  iron  or  steel,  while  the  portion  guarding  the  neck  and 
throat  is  of  leather.  Whereas  the  majority  wear  leather  armor,  some 
have  their  harness  completely  wrought  from  iron,  which  is  made  in  the 
following  manner.  They  beat  out  in  large  numbers  thin  iron  laminae 
a  finger  broad  and  a  full  hand  long.  In  each  they  bore  eight  small 
apertures,  through  which  they  pull  three  straight  leather  thongs. 
Thereupon  they  arrange  these  laminae  or  plates  one  above  another,  as 


1  See  Sung  ski,  Ch.  197,  p.  6. 

1  W.  W.  ROCKHILL,  The  Journey  of  William  of  Rubruck,  p.  xv  (London,  1900). 

1  Ibid.,  p.  261.    He  mentions  also  iron  caps  from  Persia. 

4  In  the  new  edition  of  G.  PULL£,  pp.  86-88  (Studi  italiani  difilologia  indo-iranica, 
Vol.  IX,  Firenze,  1913).  C.  R.  BEAZLEY,  The  Texts  and  Versions  of  John  de  Piano 
Carpini,  pp.  89,  124  (London,  1903,  Hakluyt  Society). 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  PLATE  ARMOR  281 

it  were,  ascending  by  degrees,  and  tie  the  plates  to  the  thongs  mentioned 
by  means  of  other  small  and  tender  thongs  drawn  through  the  apertures. 
And  in  the  upper  part  they  fasten  a  single,  small  thong,  doubled  on  each 
side,  and  sew  it  on  to  another,  that  the  plates  may  be  well  and  tightly 
connected.  Thus  a  uniform  protection  is  effected  by  these  plates,  and 
such-like  armor  is  made  for  their  horses  as  well  as  for  their  men.  It  is 
so  highly  polished  that  a  man  may  mirror  his  face  in  it.  In  regard  to 
shields,  Carpini  observes  that  they  have  them  made  of  wickerware  or 
small  rods  (de  mminibus  vel  de  virgulis  factum),  but  that  they  carry 
them  only  in  camp  and  when  on  guard  over  the  emperor  and  the 
princes,  and  then  only  at  night.  The  armament  of  the  Mongols  was 
not  uniform;  and  this  complex  and  expensive  structure  of  plate  armor 
was  probably  within  the  reach  of  but  few.  Their  ordinary  armor  was 
a  cuirass  of  boiled-leather  scales.  According  to  Carpini,  the  leather 
was  that  obtained  from  an  ox  or  some  other  animal;  and  the  scales  were 
a  hand  broad.1  Three  or  four  of  these  were  held  together  by  means  of 
pitch,  and  connected  with  one  another  by  means  of  cords.  In  double  or 
triple  rows  they  were  laid  around  the  trunk.  The  complete  set  of 
armature  consisted  of  four  parts,  —  the  front  piece,  reaching  from  the 
neck  down  to  the  lower  part  of  the  thighs,  and  well  adapted  to  the  form 
of  the  body;  the  back  protector,  and  an  apron  encompassing  the  back 
and  abdomen;  and  the  brassards  and  cuishes.  The  back  of  the  upper 
arm  was  guarded  by  two  iron  plates  hinged  together. 

The  plate  idea  has  remained  the  basic  principle  of  the  officially 
recognized  body  armor  down  to  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
The  changes  were  those  of  style  and  ornamentation  only,  while  no  funda- 
mental innovations  were  added  in  the  Ming  and  Manchu  periods.  The 
Statutes  of  the  Ming  Dynasty  (Ta  Ming  hui  lien)  contain  the  following 
regulations  relative  to  plate  armor:  "In  1374  it  was  ordered  that  in- 
stead of  the  threads,  by  means  of  which  the  armor-plates  were  held 
together,  leather  thongs  should  be  used.  In  1376  the  General  Staff  was 
ordered  to  make  war-suits  of  cotton  (mien  htia  chan  i),  and  to  apply  to 
them  four  colors,  —  red,  purple,  dark  blue,  and  yellow;  for  Kiang-si  and 
other  places,  to  make  war-coats  with  different  colors  on  the  exterior  and 
interior,  and  to  cause  the  officers  and  petty  officers  to  change  their 
uniforms  accordingly.  In  1383  orders  were  given  for  harness,  each  set 
to  be  made  as  follows:  for  the  colletin  (neck-guard)  thirty  plates,  for 
the  body  armor  two  hundred  and  nine  plates,  for  the  plastron  (breast- 
plate) seventeen  plates,  for  the  pauldron  (e"pauliere)2  twenty  plates. 


's  complete  text  is  followed  here;  this  portion  is  lacking  in  the  former 
editions  of  Carpini. 

1  In  Chinese,  "arm-pit  plates"  (chi  wo  ye). 


282 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


FIG.  43. 
Illustrations  showing  the  Conventional  Chinese  Style  of  Drawing  Plate  Mail  (from  T'u  shutsich'tng). 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  PLATE  ARMOR 


283 


FIG.  44. 
Illustrations  showing  the  Conventional  Chinese  Style  of  Drawing  Plate  Mail  (from  T"u  shutsi  ck'txg). 


284  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

All  these  pieces  are  soaked  with  lime,  and  united  by  means  of  soft, 
tanned  leather  thongs  passing  through  the  perforations  of  the  plates. 
Along  the  maritime  coast  of  Che"-kiang  and  in  Kuang-tung,  the  guards 
stationed  there  have  to  utilize  black-lacquered  iron  plates  perforated 
and  connected  by  cotton  strings;  for  the  rest,  however,  their  armor  is 
made  in  the  style  of  the  'brilliant  armor'  (ming  kid).1 

"  In  1435  (tenth  year  of  the  period  Suan-te1)  the  ordinance  was  issued 
that  each  coat  had  to  be  fixed  at  a  length  of  four  feet  and  six  inches,  with 
a  supply  of  two  catties  of  cotton  and  velvet;  for  the  making  of  the 
trousers,  half  a  catty  of  cotton  and  velvet  should  be  used;  the  wadded 
boots  should  be  from  nine  inches  and  a  half  up  to  one  foot,  or  one  foot 
and  two  inches  long.  Now,  the  regulation  was  provided  to  make  wide 
coats  and  trousers,  and  to  employ  for  these  fine,  closely  woven,  broad, 
and  white  cotton  stuff  dyed  blue,  red,  or  green;  the  sleeves  should  be 
wide  and  long;  and  the  materials  employed,  like  cotton  and  velvet, 
should  be  of  solid  quality.  The  wadded  boots  should  be  fine,  thick,  and 
strong.  In  the  finished  garment  a  written  entry  was  to  be  made  by  the 
government  officers  who  inspect  the  troops  and  examine  their  equip- 
ments; they  shall  enter  the  family  name  and  surname  of  the  tailor,  the 
cost-price,  the  measurements  in  feet  and  inches,  the  weight,  the  number 
of  strips  of  cloth  used  in  the  skirts,  with  seal  attached.  At  fixed  terms, 
every  year  before  the  seventh  month,  the  uniforms  were  to  be  furnished. 

"In  the  year  1496  (ninth  year  of  the  period  Hung-chi  under  the 
Emperor  Hiao-tsung)  it  was  ordered  that  for  the  covers  of  the  armor 2 
thick  and  dark  blue  and  white  cotton  stuff  should  be  employed,  that 
for  the  '  armor  with  nails '  (ting  kid)  small  studs  with  lacquered  heads 
should  be  used.  It  was  further  settled  that,  for  each  set  of  a  blue  cotton 
stuff  iron  armor,  iron  to  the  quantity  of  forty  catties  and  eight  ounces 
should  be  required,  and  that  each  set  of  the  finished  armor  should 
weigh  twenty-four  to  twenty-five  catties.  In  1 503  order  was  given  that 
the  guards  stationed  in  southern  China  should  exchange  their  iron 
armor  for  that  made  of  water-buffalo  skin  sewed  together  by  means 
of  cotton  ropes." 

Figs.  43  and  44  are  here  inserted  to  illustrate  the  conventional 
Chinese  style  of  representing  plate  mail.3 

The  Manchu  dynasty  adopted  the  military  institutions  of  the  Ming 
in  their  entire  range,  and  in  particular  the  defensive  armor,  without 
making  any  new  additions  in  the  line.  Plate  XXXIV  illustrates  a 

1 A  technical  term  frequently  employed  in  the  Annals;  it  presumably  refers  to 
highly  varnished  and  polished  plates  of  iron  or  steel. 
*  In  Chinese,  "the  face  of  the  armor"  (kia  mien). 
'  Compare  note  4  on  p.  243. 


THE  PROBLEM  or  PLATE  ARMOR  285 

horseman's  suit  of  armor,  as  it  was  in  vogue  during  the  K'ien-lung  period 
(1736-1795).  It  is  complete  with  leggings  and  helmet.  The  lower 
garment  is  covered  by  four  parallel  rows  of  very  thin,  light  and  elastic 
steel  laminae  of  rectangular  shape,  9  cm  long  and  i  cm  wide,  rounded  at 
the  upper  end,  perforated  at  both  apex  and  base,  and  sewed  on  to  a 
foundation  of  cloth,  the  lower  ends  being  hidden  in  a  fold,  where  they 
are  riveted  by  means  of  studs  with  broad,  gold-plated  heads.  They  are 
not  mutually  joined,  but  one  overlaps  another  to  a  slight  degree.  In 
the  upper  garment  the  steel  plates  are  invisible,  being  inserted  as  an 

I  interlining  (between  the  lining  and  the  silk  on  the  exterior) ,  and  fastened 
by  means  of  rivets,  so  that  their  gilt  heads  appearing  on  the  surface 
indicate  the  hiding-places  of  the  plates.1  Dragons,  all  together  six, 
rising  from  the  sea  and  standing  erect,  are  embroidered  with  gold  threads 
on  the  front  and  back  of  the  coat,  on  the  two  separate  shoulder-pieces, 
and  on  the  two  side-pieces  underneath  the  arms.  The  casque,  composed 
of  two  steel  sheets  and  surmounted  by  a  black  velvet  plume,  has  chased 
dragons  in  front,  and  is  provided  with  silk  protectors  enveloping  occiput, 
neck,  ears,  and  chin. 

The  uniform  of  an  artillery-man  (Plate  XXXV)  consists  of  a  coat, 
lower  garment,  and  pair  of  leggings  of  wadded  black  satin  lined  with 
light-blue  silk,  and  studded  with  gold-plated,  riveted  bosses.  These 
bosses,  of  a  merely  decorative  character,  are  the  survivals  of  the  iron  or 
steel  plates  which,  as  in  the  preceding  harness,  are  wrapped  up  in  the 
interior  of  the  garment  or  are  fastened  to  the  lining.  The  plates  are 
retained  in  this  specimen  only  for  the  protection  of  the  shoulders,  but 
have  a  decorative  rather  than  a  positive  value.  They  are  arranged  in 
rows  of  three,  two  rows  being  in  front  and  two  at  the  back  on  each 


1  It  is  singular  that  the  students  of  plate  armor  have  never  turned  their  atten- 
tion to  China,  although  it  was  very  clearly  described  as  early  as  by  GERBILLON  (in 
Du  HALDE,  Description  of  the  Empire  of  China,  Vol.  II,  p.  340,  London,  1741): 
"All  the  soldiers  who  were  in  the  camp,  headed  by  their  officers,  repaired  to  the 
place  appointed,  armed  with  their  casques  and  cuirasses.  The  Emperor  put  on  like- 
wise his  cuirass  and  helmet,  being  accompanied  with  his  eldest  and  third  sons;  but 
this  latter  was  not  armed,  being  too  young  to  bear  the  weight  of  a  Tartarian  cuirass. 
This  cuirass  consists  of  two  pieces;  one  is  a  sort  of  under  petticoat  which  is  girt  about 
the  body,  and  reaches  below  the  knee  when  they  are  standing,  but  covers  all  their 
limbs  when  they  are  on  horseback:  the  other  piece  is  like  the  coats  of  armor  of  the 
ancients,  but  the  sleeves  are  longer,  reaching  to  the  wrist.  The  outside  of  both 
these  pieces  is  of  satin,  for  the  most  part  purple,  embroidered  with  gold,  silver,  and 
silk  of  various  colors.  Next  to  this  satin,  lined  with  some  pieces  of  taffety,  are  ham- 
mered plates  of  iron  or  steel,  finely  burnished,  which  are  placed  like  scales  on  the 
body  of  a  fish,  whence  they  probably  took  the  notion.  Each  plate,  which  is  about  an 
inch  and  half  long,  and  a  little  more  than  an  inch  in  breadth,  is  fastened  to  the  satin 
by  two  small  nails,  the  heads,  being  round  and  well  polished,  appearing  without. 
Some  few  put  another  piece  of  taffety  within-side,  which  covers  the  iron  plates.  These 
cuirasses  have  this  conveniency  that  they  do  not  deprive  the  body  of  the  liberty  of 
turning  and  moving  easily;  but  then  they  are  exceeding  heavy." 


286  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

shoulder,  and  connected  by  a  broad,  quadrangular  plate  resting  on  the 
shoulder.  Each  lamina  is  of  steel  and  gold-plated,  and  chased  with  a 
four-clawed  dragon  soaring  in  clouds.  From  the  lower  ends  of  the 
plate  rows  project  two  gold-plated  arms,  likewise  chased  with  figures 
of  dragons  and  encircling  a  round  metal  plaque  (of  white  copper  or 
tootnague,  with  brass  rim) .  A  plaque  of  the  same  material  and  size  is 
fastened  to  the  back.  Such  circular  plaques  are  known  as  hu  sin  king 
(No.  2170),  literally  "mirror  guarding  the  heart;"  that  is,  a  protective 
amulet.  The  helmet  is  identical  with  the  one  previously  mentioned, 
and  heavily  lined  with  quilted  material. 

The  archer's  suit  of  armor  (Plates  XXXVI,  XXXVII)  is  made  of 
black  silk,  the  interior  being  covered  with  broad  steel  plates,  each  secured 
by  means  of  two  rivets  only,  so  that  the  plates  are  loose  and  movable. 
Their  disposition  on  the  shoulders  is  at  variance  with  that  in  the 
preceding  specimen.  There  is  but  one  row  of  three  brass  plates  in 
front  of  each  shoulder,  extending  in  length  as  much  as  the  two  rows  in 
the  previous  armor.  There  are  three  narrow  plates  arranged  side  by 
side  on  the  surface  of  the  shoulders ,  and  three  on  the  back  much  shorter 
than  those  in  front.  The  three  rows  covering  either  shoulder  are  inter- 
laced and  riveted  together.  Each  of  these  shoulder-plates  is  decorated 
with  two  rampant  dragons  playing  with  a  flamed  ball.  The  coat  is 
embroidered  with  six  dragons  all  together. 

In  i go i  I  saw  a  very  interesting  and  ancient  suit  of  plate  mail  in 
the  Mahakala  Temple,  which  is  situated  within  the  walls  of  the  Imperial 
City  of  Peking.  The  suit  is  of  yellow  silk,  to  which  iron  plates  are 
attached  both  outside  and  inside,  —  those  on  the  exterior  being  very  nar- 
row slips,  those  on  the  interior  being  four  times  broader  and  occupying 
the  interval  left  by  the  outside  plates ;  so  that  by  this  alternating  process 
a  complete  plating  is  insured. 

On  Plates  XXXVIII— XL  is  represented  what  may  be  styled  a  parade 
or  ceremonial  armor.  It  is  the  uniform  belonging  to  a  guard-officer  of 
the  first  rank,  detailed  on  duty  in  the  Imperial  Palace.1  These  military 
officers  were  divided  into  seven  ranks,  each  distinguished  by  a  special 
coat  and  helmet,  and  an  equipment  with  appropriate  insignia.  Their 
outfits  are  minutely  described  in  the  State  Handbook  of  the  Manchu 
Dynasty.  The  cut,  the  style,  and  the  main  characteristics  of  body 
armor  are  well  preserved  in  this  costume,  which  is  magnificently  em- 
broidered with  heavy  gold  thread,  and  studded  with  gilt  bosses.  Drag- 
ons', tigers',  and  lions'  heads  are  the  prevailing  motives  of  ornamenta- 
tion. The  disposition  of  the  shoulder-plates  is  identical  with  that 

1  This  is  ascertained  from  the  descriptions  and  illustrations  of  the  official  costumes 
given  in  Huang  ch'ao  li  k'i  t'u  shi  and  Ta  Ts'ing  hui  tien  t'u. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  PLATE  ARMOR  287 

in  the  suit  of  the  artillery-man,  except  that  the  dragons  are  here  em- 
bossed, and  the  clouds  are  treated  in  open-work,  all  metal  pieces  being 
heavily  gilded.  Five  similar  plates  are  suspended  from  the  ends  of  the 
shoulder-pieces. 

The  steel  helmet  (Plate  XXXIX)  is  a  gaudy  and  elaborate  affair 
of  admirable  workmanship.  It  is  surmounted  by  a  high  crest  terminat- 
ing in  a  pair  of  eagle-feathers  painted  with  dragons  in  gold,  and  is 
adorned  with  twelve  black  sable-tails,1  seven  of  which  are  preserved. 
Dragons  are  lavished  on  it,  being  chased  in  the  plated  brass  mountings, 
or  cut  out  of  the  same  material  in  full  figure,  or  represented  in  inlaid 
feather- work.2 

The  bow-case  and  quiver  figured  on  Plate  XL  belong  to  the  accoutre- 
ments of  the  same  official.  They  are  of  leather,  dressed  with  red  velvet; 
the  upper  corners  and  lower  portion  of  the  bow-case  are  finished  with 
black  leather.  The  metal  fittings,  of  gilt  bronze,  fastened  to  the  centre 
and  corners  of  both  objects,  are  of  very  elegant  forms  and  delicate 
workmanship.  The  quiver,  in  addition  to  these  ornaments,  is  decorated 
with  three  symbols  meaning  "longevity"  (shew).  The  arrows  are  stuck 
into  the  folds  in  the  interior  formed  by  layers  of  brown  felt. 

Reference  has  been  made  above  (p.  272)  to  the  early  mining  of  iron 
in  Korea,  and  the  barter  carried  on  in  this  metal  from  there  to  the  neigh- 
boring tribes.  Metal  armor  (k'ai  kid)  seems  to  have  prevailed  in  the 
kingdom  of  Kokurye  (Kao-kii-li)  at  an  early  date. 3  The  Annals  of  the 
Sui  Dynasty4  state  in  regard  to  the  kingdom  of  Sinra  in  Korea  that  its 
defensive  and  offensive  armor  is  identical  with  that  of  China,  which 
would  mean  that  Sinra  had  derived  its  armor  from  China.  The  Books 
of  the  T'ang  Dynasty  mention  a  kind  of  armor,  seemingly  peculiar  to 
the  state  of  Pek-tsi  in  Korea,  under  the  name  "armor  of  bright  lustre" 
(kuang  ming  k'ai),  which  must  have  been  iron  armor.  Such  a  suit  was 
presented  in  622  to  the  Emperor  of  China,  and  in  637  iron  armor 
(fie  kid),  together  with  carved  axes,  was  sent  as  tribute  to  the  Emperor 
T'ai-tsung.5  Metal  armor  is  alluded  to  likewise  in  the  Annals  of  Korea.6 
When  the  Japanese  plundered  the  royal  palace  of  Kokurye,  in  562, 


1  This  is  the  required  number  according  to  the  official  statement. 
1  From  the    blue  plumes  of   the  kingfisher,  Halcyon  smyrnensis  (in   Chinese, 
fei-ts'ui). 

1  Liang  shu,  Ch.  54,  p.  9  b;  Nan  shi,  Ch.  79,  p.  I  b. 
4  Sui  shu,  Ch.  81,  p.  4  (also  Pei  shi,  Ch.  94,  p.  7). 

*  T'ang  shu,  Ch.  220,  pp.  4,  7. 

•  See,  for  instance,  Ta  tung  ki  nien  (published  at  Shanghai,  1903),  Ch.  I,  p.  69  b. 
The  Koreans  possess  a  considerable  literature  on  military  art  (M.  COURANT,  Biblio- 
graphic cor^enne,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  63-89). 


288  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

they  obtained  among  other  treasures  two  suits  of  armor. l  We  have  no 
exact  information  as  to  what  these  ancient  suits  of  armor  were  like, 
and  can  base  our  conclusions  only  on  such  specimens  as  we  find  in 
the  country  at  present.  Among  these  are  some  of  considerable  age; 
that  is,  ranging  within  the  time  of  the  last  two  centuries  or  so.  We 
have  two  main  types  of  harness  from  Korea, — padded  armor2  and 
plate  mail. 

A  very  interesting  specimen  of  the  latter  type  is  in  the  Museum 
collection  (Plates  XLI,  XLII).  It  is  a  rough-looking  coat  of  strong 
twill,  lined  with  blue  cotton,  and  covered  with  hemp  cloth  of  loose  texture 
imprinted  all  over  with  charms  by  means  of  wooden  blocks.3  The 
designs  are  effaced  to  such  a  degree  that  the  details  can  no  longer  be 
recognized:  birds'  heads,  floral  designs,  trees,  arabesques,  are  con- 
spicuous; Sanskrit  letters,  which  occur  in  other  specimens,  are  absent. 
The  buttons  in  front  are  of  bone;  the  sides  are  open,  and  provided  with 
rows  of  buttons.  Both  front  and  back  are  strengthened  by  seven  parallel 
rows  of  rectangular  steel  plates  (averaging  10.2  X  7.5  cm),  very  flexible, 
each  coated  on  both  faces  with  a  black  varnish.  The  plates  are  not 
mutually  connected,  but  merely  imbricated,  —  a  feature  not  yet  ob- 
served in  Chinese  plate  mail.  Each  plate  is  clinched  to  the  cloth 
foundation  by  means  of  two  rivets  with  flat  heads.  They  are  driven 
through,  and  appear  on  the  exterior  as  big  iron  nail-heads.  A  number 
of  plates  have  additional  perforations  that  are  not  utilized,  but  which 
show  that  the  plates  could  have  been  tightly  sewed  on  to  the  back- 
ground had  not  the  wearer  of  this  armor  preferred  to  have  them  loose 
and  movable.  The  shoulders  are  covered  on  the  interior  by  two  rows  of 

1  ASTON,  Nihongi,  Vol.  II,  p.  86. 

2  A  Korean  armor  consisting  of  many  thicknesses  of  coarse  cotton  cloth  is  figured 
by  W.  HOUGH  (The  Corean  Collections  in  the  U.  S.  National  Museum,  Report  U.  S. 
Nat.  Mus.,  1891,  Plate  XXVIII,  and  Primitive  American  Armor,  /.  c.,  p.  645) ;  the  sur- 
face of  portions  of  the  coat  is  printed  with  prayer  formulas  (dhdrant)  in  Sanskrit,  and 
such  are  inscribed  also  on  the  helmet.     This  practice  seems  to  be  derived  from 
China:    the  helmets  used  by  the  imperial  house  during  the  Manchu  dynasty  were 
chased  with  Sanskrit  characters  (see  Huang  ch'ao  li  k'i  t'u  shi,  Ch.  13,  or  Ta  Ts'ing 
hui  tien  t'u,  Ch.  61).    A  modern  Korean  helmet  is  illustrated  by  E.  ZIMMERMANN 
(Koreanische  Kunst,  Hamburg,  no  date,  Plate  VI).    It  is  a  leather  helmet  of  conical 
shape,  surmounted  by  a  bunch  of  horse-hair  and  a  metal  ball  in  open-work,  and  adorned 
with  dragons  and  a  hydra  about  to  attack,  wrought  in  gilt  metal;  fur-lined  ear- 
warmers  covered  with  metal  studs  are  attached  to  it,  the  whole  style  being  that  of  the 
Manchu  dynasty.     The  costume  on  Plate  VII,  explained  as  the  official  robe  of  a 
minister,  is  in  fact  a  pseudo-armor,  as  shown  by  the  rows  of  metal  bosses  and  the 
two  applique'  dragons  playing  with  balls;  it  is  similar  to  the  one  on  our  Plate  XLIII. 
Generals'  and  soldiers  helmets  are  figured  and  briefly  described  by  F.  H.  JENINGS 
(Korean  Headdresses  in  the  National  Museum,  Smithsonian  Miscellaneous  Collec- 
tions, Vol.  45,  1904,  pp.  161-163).    Good  specimens  of  these  are  also  in  the  Field 
Museum. 

1  Much  in  the  style  of  Tibetan  cloth  prints  which  are  attached  to  flag-poles  set 
up  on  the  roofs  of  houses  in  order  to  bring  luck  to  the  inmates. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  PLATE  ARMOR  289 

plates,  and  are  reinforced  on  the  outside  by  iron  bars,  one  for  either 
shoulder,  each  bar  consisting  of  two  parts  hinged  together,  so  that  easy 
motion  is  secured.  The  casque  (Plate  XLII)  consists  of  two  sheets  of 
iron  riveted  together,  with  a  projecting  visor  and  frontal  covering  the 
forehead.  The  couvre-nuque  and  the  ear-protectors  attached  to  the 
casque  are  made  from  the  same  hemp  cloth  as  the  harness;  they  are 
likewise  printed  with  designs,  and  stuffed  with  iron  plates,  which  are 
kept  in  place  by  means  of  the  clinches  appearing  on  the  surface.  The 
top  of  the  helmet  is  surmounted  by  an  iron  trident  and  a  tuft  of  red- 
dyed  horse-hair.  There  is  no  doubt  that  this  Korean  armor  represents 
a  very  primitive  type  of  plate  mail,  and  conveys  to  us  an  excellent  idea 
of  what  the  ancient  Chinese  plate  mail  may  have  been  like.1 

On  Plate  XLIII  is  shown  the  Korean  court  costume  of  a  high  official, 
which  is  a  pseudo-armor  in  imitation  of  Chinese  style.  The  cloak-like 
robe  consists  of  red  cloth  trimmed  with  otter-fur,  and  lined  with  light- 
blue  Chinese  silk.  It  is  strewn  with  regular  rows  of  brass  bosses  rep- 
resenting purely  decorative  survivals  or  reminiscences  of  plate  armor. 
Three  globular  buttons  close  the  garment  in  front;  the  two  lower  ones 
are  hidden  under  a  broad  sash  of  figured  blue  silk.  Around  the  neck 
are  laid  twelve  maple-leaves  cut  out  of  brass  and  riveted  to  the  cloth 
(in  the  illustration  hidden  by  the  ear-protectors  of  the  helmet).  The 
epaulets  are  adorned  with  full  figures  of  gilt,  embossed  dragons  hunting 
for  the  flamed  jewel;  they  are  worked  in  sections,  which  are  cleverly 
connected  by  hinges,  so  that  the  shoulders  are  not  handicapped  in  any 
motion.  The  helmet  is  an  elaborate  affair,  composed  of  strong,  com- 
pressed, glazed  leather,  lined  with  soft  leather.  The  surface  is  divided 
by  means  of  four  metal  bars  into  four  compartments,  two  of  which  are 
each  adorned  with  a  dragon,  the  two  others  each  with  a  phenix  on  the 
wing, — all  of  gilt  bronze.  On  the  sides,  silver  phenixes  filled  with  dark- 
blue  enamel2  are  added.  The  most  interesting  point  concerning  our 
subject  is  the  fact  that  the  ear-muffs  and  nape-guard,  likewise  of  red 
cloth  trimmed  with  otter-fur,  have  thin  copper  plates  concealed  between 
the  outside  material  and  the  lining.  They  are  kept  in  place  by  copper 
nails  with  gilt  heads.  A  quilted  cap  of  blue  silk  is  worn  next  to  the  skull, 

1  W.  E.  GRIFFIS  (Corea,  the  Hermit  Kingdom,  p.  101)  figures  what  he  calls  "a 
Korean  knight  of  the  sixteenth  century."  I  have  no  judgment  on  the  authenticity 
and  alleged  dating  of  this  illustration,  but  in  itself  it  is  interesting  in  that  the  laminae 
forming  the  plastron  and  reinforcing  the  sleeves  and  brassards  are  arranged  in  hori- 
zontal (not,  as  usual,  vertical)  position.  "Many  of  their  suits  of  armor,"  GRIFFIS 
says,  "were  handsomely  inlaid,  made  of  iron  and  leather,  but  less  flexible  and  more 
vulnerable  than  those  of  the  Japanese,  which  were  of  interlaced  silk  and  steel  on  a 
background  of  tough  buckskin,  with  sleeves  of  chain  mail.  The  foot-soldiers  on  either 
side  were  incased  in  a  combination  of  iron  chain  and  plate  armor." 

1 A  process  still  extensively  applied  in  China  to  silver  jewelry. 


290  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

under  this  helmet.  Below,  on  the  same  Plate,  is  illustrated  the  black- 
varnished  wooden  chest  in  which  the  suit  is  stored,  with  a  special 
conical  compartment  for  the  casque.  This  arrangement  is  also  in 
imitation  of  a  Chinese  practice.  Japanese  plate  armor  has  so  frequently 
been  described l  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  dwell  on  this  subject.  What 
is  important  for  the  purpose  of  our  investigation  is  the  fact  that  it  does 
not  arise  in  Japan  earlier  than  the  first  part  of  the  ninth  century ; 2  that 
is,  in  the  T'ang  period,  when  it  was  perfectly  known  in  China.  It  is 
therefore  certain  that  the  idea  has  penetrated  into  Japan  from  China 
and  Korea,  whatever  subsequent  developments,  changes,  and  improve- 
ments plate  mail  may  have  undergone  in  Japan. 

Armor  composed  of  horizontal  rows  of  small  iron  plates,  presumably 
of  Chinese  origin,  seems  to  occur  occasionally  in  Tibet.  A  specimen 
recently  presented  by  the  Dalai  Lama  to  the  King  of  England  is  now 
preserved  in  the  British  Museum.3 

Looking  backward  at  the  remarkably  wide  distribution  of  plate 
armor,  we  cannot  fail  to  recognize  in  this  fact  a  certain  degree  of  histori- 
cal coherence.  This  coherence,  without  any  doubt,  exists  in  the  T'ang 
period  between  Turkistan  and  China  on  the  one  hand,  and  between 
China,  Korea,  and  Japan  on  the  other  hand.  But  the  T'ang  epoch  de- 
notes only  the  culminating  point  in  this  development,  —  that  period  in 
which  we  observe  plate  mail  wrought  to  its  greatest  perfection.  Metal 
plate  mail  is  a  complex  affair  of  difficult  and  refined  technique,  a  down- 
right product  of  higher  civilization,  which  is  witnessed  by  the  fact  that 
it  is  conspicuously  absent  among  all  primitive  cultures  of  Asia,  Africa, 
and  ancient  Europe.  Certainly  it  did  not  come  into  existence  all  at 
once  as  a  finished  product  of  industry.  It  ran  through  many  experi- 
mental stages,  and  took  time  to  develop  and  to  mature.  The  elegant 
specimens  of  the  T'ang,  granting  the  muscles  free  motion  and  aiming  at 
aesthetic  qualities,  were  preceded  by  those  of  coarser  and  cruder  work- 
manship ;  as  we  see,  for  instance,  in  the  Korean  specimen  on  Plates  XLI 
and  XLI  I.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  probability  in  the  supposition  that 
such  existed,  both  in  China  and  among  the  Iranian  and  Turkish  tribes  of 

1  First  by  PH.  H.  v.  SIEBOLD,  Nippon,  Vol.  I,  p.  333. 

1 J.  CONDER,  The  History  of  Japanese  Costume  (Transactions  Asiatic  Society  of 
Japan,  Vol.  IX,  1881,  p.  256).  According  to  this  author,  the  employment  of  plates 
and  scales  of  iron  in  armor  was  finally  established  as  late  as  the  epoch  Tensho  (1573- 
1592).  See  chiefly  BASHFORD  DEAN,  Catalogue  of  the  Loan  Collection  of  Japanese 
Armor. 

1  It  is  figured  on  Plate  III  of  the  Ethnographical  Guide  published  by  the  British 
Museum.  See  also  A.  STEIN,  Ancient  Khotan,  Vol.  I,  p.  xvi.  Armor  of  small  steel 
plates  riveted  on  red  velvet  appears  also  in  Europe  (see,  for  instance,  BASHFORD 
DEAN,  Catalogue  of  European  Arms,  p.  48),  but  this  subject  is  not  within  the  scope 
of  the  present  investigation. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  PLATE  ARMOR  291 

Central  Asia,  ages  before  the  T'ang,  presumably  as  early  as  the  era  of 
the  Han  (p.  214).  Iranians  surely  were  the  mediators  between  the 
west  and  the  east  in  this  matter,  in  the  same  manner  as  they  acted  in 
the  transmission  of  chain  mail,  caparisons  for  horses, l  and  the  great 
principles  of  cavalry  tactics.  Up  to  this  point  the  territory  is  fairly 
well  reconnoitred.  But  thus  far  we  are  entirely  ignorant  of  when  and 
how  plate  mail  may  have  arisen  in  Iran,  nor  do  we  positively  know 
whether  it  existed  there  at  all;  if  it  did,  the  possible  connection  with  the 
plate  mail  of  ancient  Egypt  and  Assyria  remains  a  subject  for  in- 
vestigation. Altogether  the  impression  remains  that  plate  armor,  the 
last  offshoots  of  which  we  encounter  in  the  farthest  north-east  corner 
of  Asia  and  the  farthest  north-west  of  America,  took  its  origin  from 
western  Asia.  This  field  is  entirely  beyond  my  competency ;  and  it  is 
the  sole  object  of  these  notes  to  point  out  the  existence  of  the  problem, 
and  to  leave  its  final  solution  to  the  ambition  of  others. 

1  See  Chapter  VII. 


VI.  DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  T'ANG  PERIOD 

In  the  preceding  notes  we  had  occasion  to  refer  repeatedly  to  de- 
fensive armor  of  the  T'ang  period  (618-906).  Mention  has  been 
made  of  the  fact  that  cuirasses  of  rhinoceros-hide  were  then  still  in 
existence  (p.  189),  and  also  that  those  of  buffalo-hide  then  came  into 
vogue  (p.  162).  Plate  mail  reached  its  climax  at  that  time  (p.  277),  and 
chain  mail  was  introduced  from  Iranian  regions  (p.  246).  The  types  of 
armor  utilized  under  the  T'ang  must  have  been  of  a  large  variety.  The 
Statutes  of  the  T'ang  Dynasty,  drawn  up  by  the  Emperor  Yuan-tsung 
(7I3~755)>1  enumerate  thirteen  classes  of  armor  manufactured  by  the 
Imperial  Armory  (wu  k'-u) :  six  of  these  were  of  iron,  and  of  the  types  of 
plate,  scale,  and  chain  armor;  others  were  of  white  stuffs,  black  silk, 
hide,  and  even  of  wood  (p.  276).  How  the  military  uniform  was  then 
combined  with  armor  has  also  been  set  forth  (p.  2  7 5) .  Besides  the  means 
of  protection  officially  recognized  in  the  army,  there  were  other  plain 
and  cheap  contrivances  for  the  use  of  the  people,  such  as  are  still  com- 
mon in  the  country.  Thus  we  hear  in  the  Annals  of  the  T'ang  Dynasty 
in  regard  to  a  certain  Ch'eng  K'ien  that  he  made  defensive  armor  from 
layers  of  felt.2  The  most  curious  armor  of  which  we  read  in  that  period 
was  a  kind  made  from  sheets  of  paper  laid  in  folds,  which  could  not 
be  pierced  by  the  strongest  arrows;  this  invention  is  credited  to  Shang 
Sui-ting. 

Under  the  Sung  dynasty,  paper  armor  was  officially  recognized,  for 
we  hear  that  in  the  year  1040  the  troops  stationed  in  Kiang-nan  and 
Huai-nan  (in  An-hui  Province)  were  ordered  to  fabricate  thirty  thousand 
suits  of  paper  armor,  to  be  distributed  among  the  garrisons  of  Shen-si 
Province.  The  localities  mentioned  are  celebrated  for  their  paper 
manufacture,  and  were  accordingly  obliged  to  contribute  to  a  demand 
which  could  not  be  filled  in  Shen-si.  The  Wu  pei  chi  (Ch.  105,  p.  17) 
of  1621  has  preserved  for  us  an  illustration  of  such  paper  armor 
(Fig.  45),  arranged  in  triangular  scales  slightly  rounded  at  the  base. 
These  suits  were  especially  favored  under  the  Ming  in  southern  China 
by  the  soldiers  fighting  the  Japanese,  who  then  invaded  the  Chinese 
coasts.3  The  favorite  brand  of  paper  for  this  purpose  in  recent  times 

1  See  above,  p.  189. 

*  P'ei  w$n  yun  fu,  Ch.  40,  p.  86.  In  1286,  according  to  Yuan  shi,  the  country 
of  Ma-fa  sent  a  tribute  of  saddles,  bridles,  and  felt  armor. 

1  The  same  work  illustrates  also  armor  of  plaited  rattan;  but  it  is  not  known  at 
what  time  this  type  of  armor  sprang  up  in  China. 

292 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  or  THE  T'ANG  PERIOD 


293 


was  the  famed  Korean  paper  highly  prized  in  China  and  Japan  for  its 
toughness  and  durability,  and  forming  part  of  the  annual  tribute  sent 
from  Korea  to  Peking.  In  the  treaty  of  1637,  concluded  after  the 
Manchu  invasion,  the  figure  was  stipulated  at  five  thousand  rolls  of 
large  and  small  paper.1  A  good  deal  of  Korean  paper  was  utilized  by 


FIG.  45. 
Paper  Armor  (from  Wu  fei  chi). 

the  tailors  of  the  Chinese  metropolis  as  lining  for  the  coats  of  officials 
and  gentlemen.  It  served  also  for  the  covering  of  window-frames.  A 
sewed  wad  of  from  ten  to  fifteen  thicknesses  of  it  made  a  protective 
armor  for  the  troops.  It  is  said  to  have  resisted  a  musket-ball,  but  not 
a  rifle-bullet.1 


1  W.  W.  ROCKHILL,  China's  Intercourse  with  Korea,  p.  25  (London,  1905).  A 
notice  on  Korean  paper  is  contained  in  the  Wei  Ho  (Ch.  12,  p.  i  b). 

1  W.  E.  GRIFFIS,  Corea,  the  Hermit  Nation,  p.  153  (New  York,  1904).  Paper 
and  cotton  armor  still  exist  in  southern  China.  Consul  BEDLOE  (quoted  above, 
p.  1 80) offers  the  following  remarks  on  this  subject:  "Parallel  to  this  alternating  of 
leather  and  wool  in  the  north  was  that  of  paper  and  cotton  cloth  in  the  south  of 
China.  It  seems  ridiculous  to  call  such  combinations  armor,  and  yet  they  make  an 
armor  superior  in  many  instances  to  steel.  Thirty  thicknesses  of  alternate  calico 
and  paper  will  resist  a  pistol  bullet  or  one  from  a  rifle  at  a  distance  of  a  hundred 
yards.  A  spearman  who  thrusts  his  weapon  into  a  man  clad  in  this  kind  of  garment 


294  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

The  most  interesting  source  for  the  study  of  T'ang  defensive  armor 
is  naturally  offered  by  the  clay  figures  and  figurines;  and  these  reveal 
to  us  a  new  style  of  armor,  that  of  sheet  armor,  which  is  thoroughly 
characteristic,  not  of  the  life,  but  of  the  art,  of  this  period. 

The  type  of  clay  image  which  comes  here  into  question  is  of  the  great- 
est interest,  as  it  originated  in  the  £ivaitic  worship  of  India,  and  be- 
came widely  diffused  over  Tibet,  Turkistan,  China,  and  Japan.  We 
may  in  general  classify  the  manifold  variations  of  this  type  among  the 
so-called  Dharmapala  ("Protectors  of  Religion"),  guardian  deities 
adopted  by  Buddhism,  and  more  specifically  designate  it  as  Yama,  the 
God  of  Death,  who  still  plays  such  a  prominent  r61e  in  Tibetan  Lamaism. 
J.  EDKiNS1  holds  that  he  may  be  pointed  to  as  the  most  remarkable 
example  of  the  influence  of  Hindu  mythology  on  the  popular  mind  of 
China. 

Among  the  clay  figures  of  the  T'ang  period  we  find  two  fundamental 
types  of  this  Hindu  god,  —  a  zoomorphic  and  an  anthropomorphic 
form.  The  zoomorphic  form  is  doubtless  the  older  one,  and  is  closely 
associated  with  the  Lamaist  representation  of  Yama  as  Dharmaraja 
("  King  of  the  Law  ") ,  figured  with  the  head  of  a  bull,  and  dancing  on  the 
back  of  this  animal.2  Old  ZIEGENBALG,  who  wrote  in  1713  at  Tran- 
quebar  on  the  coast  of  Coromandel,  gives  the  following  description  of 
his  image  as  found  in  southern  India:  "Yama  is  represented  as  being 
quite  black,  with  a  horrible  face,  and  a  crown  on  his  head,  and  al- 
together surrounded  by  fire.  In  his  mouth  he  has  a  lion's  teeth,  and 
in  his  four  hands  he  holds  respectively  a  club,  ropes,  a  trident,  and  a 
wine-jug,  from  which  he  gives  wine  to  the  dying  to  mitigate  the  bitter- 
ness of  death.  On  the  whole  he  is  adorned  like  the  king,  and  rides  on  a 
black  buffalo.  The  poets  have  written  many  stories  about  him,  which 
these  heathens  receive  with  undoubted  credence."  3 

On  Plate  XLIV  we  see  him  modelled  in  clay,  with  most  powerful 


can  neither  wound  his  enemy  nor  extract  his  weapon,  and  if  his  enemy  is  an  archer  or 
is  armed  with  a  long  sword  or  javelin,  he  is  likely  to  lose  his  life  for  his  mischance. 
The  suit  of  a  famous  Yun-nan  bandit  consisted  of  sixty  thicknesses  of  cotton  cloth 
and  paper,  and  made  him  practically  invulnerable.  These  suits  are  comparatively 
light,  are  very  durable,  and  of  course,  extremely  cheap."  Heavy  quilted  cotton 
armors  are  still  occasionally  worn  by  Chinese  in  this  country  under  their  garments, 
when  the  members  of  secret  societies  are  on  the  war-path.  The  writer  was  once  shown 
a  wonderful  specimen  in  the  Police  Department  of  New  York,  which  weighed  so 
heavily  upon  the  unfortunate  Chinaman  that  he  was  unable  to  run,  and  was  easily 
captured  after  a  shooting-affair. 

1  Chinese  Buddhism,  p.  219  (London,  1893). 

2  PANDER  and  GR^NWEDEL,  Pantheon  des  Tschangtscha  Hutuktu,  p.  62;  GRttN- 
WEDEL,  Mythologie  des  Buddhismus,  pp.  62,  168,  174. 

1  B.  ZIEGENBALG,  Genealogy  of  the  South-Indian  Gods  (translated  into  English 
by  G.  J.  METZGER),  p.  192  (Madras,  1869). 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  T'ANG  PERIOD  295 

expression  and  lively  motion,  standing  on  the  body  of  a  sow.1  The 
animal  is  represented  in  the  agony  of  death,  with  wide-open  muzzle 
and  with  its  facial  muscles  distorted,  stretching  forth  its  four  feet.  The 
terrific  god  has  the  head  of  a  bull,  exactly  as  in  the  corresponding  Tibetan 
images, — with  two  curved  horns,  bushy  eyebrows,  and  protruding 
eyeballs  painted  black;  his  mouth  is  wide  agape,  and  shows  the  esopha- 
gus. Palate  and  face  are  coated  with  a  red  pigment.  Hands  and  feet 
are  provided  with  sharp  eagle-claws.  The  head  is  surrounded  by 
flames.2  A  projecting  crest  is  attached  to  the  spine,  and  there  is  a 
tail  at  the  end  of  it. 

Another  representation  (Plate  XLV),  likewise  with  horned  bull- 
head, shows  him  in  the  same  posture,  standing  over  the  back  of  a  re- 
clining bull,  a  snake  winding  around  his  left  arm.  In  another  clay 
figure  (Plate  XLVI)  he  is  clad  with  a  leopard-skin,  and  standing  in  the 
same  attitude  as  the  two  preceding  ones,  but  without  a  bull;  the  bearded 
face,  though  of  human  traits,  bears  a  grim,  demoniacal  expression,  and 
is  painted  red,  beard  and  mustache  being  in  black  outlines.  The 
erect  ears  are  animal-like,  as  are  the  hands  and  feet;  the  head  is  sur- 
mounted by  a  long,  slightly  twisted  horn,  somewhat  similar  to  that  on  the 
clay  figures  of  sphinxes. 

Between  the  animal  and  the  human  types,  there  is  an  intermediary 
form  with  some  features  borrowed  from  both.  In  Fig.  i  of  Plate  XLVII, 
his  head  is  still  modelled  in  the  style  of  the  bull-faced  Yama,  with  horns 
and  flames,  but  he  is  equipped  with  an  armor  in  the  same  manner  as  the 
human  forms;  and  the  plume  surmounting  his  head-dress  is  identical 
with  the  one  in  the  figures  of  knights  (Fig.  2  of  the  same  Plate).  The 
statuette  on  Plate  XLVIII,  belonging  to  the  same  intermediary  type, 
displays  all  these  features  brought  out  still  more  clearly, — the  two- 
horned  bull-like  head  with  a  certain  assimilation  to  human  traits,  the 
high  plume  and  pommels  of  the  elaborate  head-dress,  animal-heads 
protruding  from  the  sleeves,  breastplates,  an  apron,  and  a  skirt  con- 
sisting of  two  flaps;  thus  he  is  standing  over  the  figure  of  a  demon.*  A 
demon  of  exactly  the  same  type  is  modelled  in  the  glazed  statuette  on 
Plate  XLIX.  The  god,  however,  is  here  represented  as  a  purely  human 
form,  a  knight  clothed  with  heavy  armor,  pressing  his  right  hand  on  his 
hip,  and  raising  his  left.  The  figure,  except  the  head,  is  coated  with 

1  Why  in  this  particular  case  a  sow,  and  not  as  usual  a  cow,  is  represented,  I  do 
not  know.  The  interpretation  itself  is  indubitable,  the  animal  being  modelled  in  a 
most  naturalistic  style  and  thoroughly  characterized  by  the  anatomy  of  the  head  and 
the  crest  on  the  skull  and  spine. 

1  The  tips  of  two  of  them  are  broken  off. 

*  Compare  in  Indian  art  Kubera  standing  on  a  Yaksha  (GR&NWEDEL,  Buddhist 
Art  in  India,  p.  40;  and  Mythologie  des  Buddhismus,  p.  15). 


296  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

soft  lead  glazes  in  four  colors, —  green,  blue,  brown,  and  yellowish 
white;  the  demon  is  glazed  yellowish  white  with  brown  hair.  The 
plastron  of  the  knight's  armor  is  blue,  the  circular  portions  are  white, 
the  knobs  in  the  centre  are  blue.1 

Besides  the  god  in  the  garb  of  a  knight  trampling  down  a  demon, 
we  meet  again  a  similar  type  of  knight  standing  on  the  back  of  a  reclin- 
ing bull  (Plate  L).2  The  positions  of  feet  and  hands  are  quite  stereo- 
typed. The  right  foot  is  set  on  the  head  of  the  bull,  the  left  on  its 
croup;  the  left  arm  is  akimbo,  and  the  right  hand  is  raised  as  if  throw- 
ing a  weapon  (Plates  LI  and  LIII,  Fig.  i).  Or,  the  left  foot  rests  on 
the  bull's  head,  the  right  on  its  croup,  while  the  left  arm  is  akimbo, 
and  the  right  hand  raised  for  attack  (Plates  LIII,  Fig.  2,  and  LIV). 
It  will  be  noticed  how  the  conventionalization  of  this  type  gradually 
advances.  Somewhat  more  artistic  features  adhere  to  the  statuette  on 
Plate  LII,  which,  with  the  exception  of  the  head,  is  glazed  in  three 
colors, —  green,  brown,  and  yellowish  white;  the  bull  is  lost,  and  may 
be  supplemented  from  the  preceding  figure  in  Plate  LI.3  The  bull,  as 
previously  pointed  out,  alternates  with  the  demon  (Plate  LIII,  Fig.  2). 
In  Plate  LIV,  Fig.  2,  a  human  body  is  plainly  fashioned;  so  that  in 
this  case  we  have  the  same  motive  as  in  the  Lamaist  images,  in  which 
a  human  corpse  serves  as  basis  for  certain  Tantrik  deities. 

The  flat  miniature  figure  on  Plate  LV  is  very  curious,  in  that  it  is 
cast  from  lead;  it  shows  Yama  in  the  same  pose  as  the  preceding  ones, 
and  standing  on  a  bull.  Finally  we  see  the  ultimate  stage  of  develop- 

1  The  method  of  glazing  in  the  T'ang  figures  is  very  interesting:  the  idea  under- 
lying the  application  of  glazes,  if  more  than  one  glaze  is  enlisted,  seems  to  centre 
upon  the  tendency  of  reproducing  the  colors  of  costume  or  armor.  In  the  majority 
of  cases,  probably  in  all  human  figures,  it  is  only  the  costume  which  receives  the  col- 
ored glaze,  while  head  and  hands  remain  uncoated.  In  the  figurines  of  women  it  is 
sometimes  merely  the  central  portion  which  is  glazed,  the  dresses  usually  being  of 
green  and  brownish-yellow  tinges,  while  the  remaining  portion  is  covered  with  a 
white  plaster.  In  the  case  of  monochromes,  the  glazing  as  a  rule  extends  to  the 
whole  figure. 

1  A  curious  analogy  to  this  type  is  offered  in  European  mediaeval  art  by  the 
brasses  of  English  lords  in  full  armor  standing  on  the  back  of  a  lion  or  another 
animal,  and  by  the  monument  of  Count  Otto  IV  of  Henneberg,  and  other  German 
statues  (for  illustrations  see,  for  example,  BASHFORD  DEAN,  Catalogue  of  European 
Arms  and  Armor,  Figs.  17-22;  or  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  Vol.  I,  p.  587). 

1  A  type  similar  to  this  one  is  figured  on  Plate  XIV  of  the  Catalogue  of  Early 
Chinese  Pottery,  published  by  the  Burlington  Fine  Arts  Club  (London,  1911),  except 
that  in  this  figure  both  feet  are  straight  on  the  same  plane.  The  modelling  of  the 
head,  the  position  of  the  left  arm,  the  armor,  and  the  style  and  colors  of  the  glazing, 
are  identical  in  both  figures.  The  pose  of  the  right  arm,  however,  must  have  been 
different  in  our  figure,  in  accordance  with  the  drawn-up  right  foot;  it  doubtless  has 
to  be  supplemented  correspondingly  with  the  left  arm  in  the  figure  on  Plate  XLIX ; 
that  is,  the  arm  was  raised,  and  the  hand  either  formed  into  a  clenched  fist,  or  the 
palm  stretched  outward.  Also  in  the  specimen  referred  to,  which  is  in  the  possession 
of  Mr.  G.  Eumorfopoulos  of  London,  the  face  and  hands  are  unglazed,  while  the  re- 
mainder is  glazed  in  cream,  orange-yellow,  and  green  colors. 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  T'ANG  PERIOD  297 

ment  in  clay  figures  without  the  mythological  attributes  of  the  bull  or 
demon;  these  are  purely  armored  knights  or  guardians.  But  the 
derivation  of  this  type  is  unmistakable.  The  demoniacal  expression 
in  the  face  of  the  tall  figure  (Plate  LVI) —  the  mouth  is  agape,  as  if  he 
were  represented  shouting  —  reveals  his  affinity  with  the  group  of  the 
God  of  Death.  His  style  of  hair-dressing  is  the  same  as  that  in  the 
figure  on  Plate  L,  and  he  is  armored  in  the  same  manner  as  the  preceding 
images.  Such  a  demon-like  creature  is  disclosed  also  by  the  warrior 
on  Plate  LVI  I,  with  very  elaborate  body  armor  consisting  of  large  plas- 
tron and  dossiere  of  metal,  connected  by  leather  straps  running  over  the 
shoulders.  It  is  plainly  visible  how  the  two  breastplates  join  together 
in  the  middle.  He  wears  a  high  collar  and  turned-up  sleeves,  animal- 
heads  being  brought  out  on  the  upper  arms;  the  waist  is  narrow  and 
tied  by  leather  straps,  and  an  apron  of  plate  mail  is  hidden  under  the 
garment. 

Finally  we  come  to  clay  figures  which  are  plainly  knights  or  guardians 
armored  ca.p-d.-pie,  without  any  mythological  reminiscence  (Plates 
LVIII-LX). 

In  Japan,  types  exist  which  are  related  to  the  Chinese  clay  figures 
already  described.  These  are  of  highly  artistic  qualities,  and  show  us 
that  in  the  T'ang  period  a  Buddhist  school  must  have  flourished,  the 
tradition  of  which  embraced  the  whole  of  eastern  Asia.  Two  examples 
are  here  selected.  The  one  is  a  clay  figure,  originally  colored,  in  the 
Todai  temple  in  Nara,  founded  in  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century 
(Fig.  46). 1  This  remarkable  statue  is  justly  dated  by  the  Japanese  in 
the  eighth  century  (T'ang  period).  Head-dress  and  armor,  as  well  as 
pose  of  hands  and  feet,  closely  agree  with  those  of  the  Chinese  types; 
here  we  observe  that  the  raised  hand  was  indeed  grasping  a  weapon. 
The  Japanese  name  this  figure  Dhritarashtra,  one  of  the  four  Maharaja  or 
Lokapala  of  Hindu  mythology  guarding  the  world-mountain  Sumeru. 
Another  very  similar  statue  (Fig.  47) ,2  likewise  and  justly  attributed  to 
the  eighth  century,  is  named  VirQpaksha,  the  third  of  the  four  guardians 
of  the  world.  Both  are  posed  on  the  bodies  of  demons.8  The  four 
Lokapala  are  conceived  as  kings  and  heroes,  and  hence  represented  as 

1  The  sketch  is  reproduced  from  the  Kokka,  No.  170,  1904. 

1  From  the  Kokka,  No.  42.  In  the  same  manner  Vajrapapi  is  represented  (Kokka, 
No.  28,  Plate  V). 

1  The  Japanese  identifications  are  doubtless  based  on  correct  traditions,  but  I  am 
not  inclined  to  transfer  these  interpretations  to  the  Chinese  figures  standing  on 
demons  as  those  mentioned  before.  We  noticed  that  in  some  of  these  the  bull-face 
of  Yama  is  still  preserved,  and  that  consequently  this  figure  is  Yama:  hence  we  may 
infer  that  also  the  anthropomorphic  figures  standing  on  demons  are  derived  from  the 
same  type.  Compare  also  the  four  wood-carved  Lokapala  posed  on  crouching 
demons  in  Kokka,  No.  165,  1904. 


298 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


FIG.  46. 
Japanese  Colored  Clay  Statue  of  Dhritarashtra,  Eighth  Century  (after  Kokka). 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  TANG  PERIOD 


299 


FIG.  47. 
Japanese  Statue  of  Virupaksha,  Eighth  Century  (after  Kokka). 


300  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

armored;  at  the  same  time  they  are  regarded  as  "protectors  of  religion" 
(Sanskrit  dharmapdla),  and  for  this  reason  are  shown  in  so-called  terrific 
forms.1 

Analogous  types  of  Lokapala  are  met  in  the  contemporaneous  stone 
sculpture  of  China,  for  instance,  in  the  caves  of  Lung-me'n.2  A  marble 
relief  (Plate  LXI)  in  the  Museum  collection  shows  an  armored  Virupak- 
sha  leaning  on  a  two-edged  sword,  and  holding  a  miniature  Stupa  (tope) 
in  his  left  hand.3  The  armor  is  very  clearly  represented:  the  breast- 
plates tightly  envelop  the  thorax,  and  are  held  in  place  by  means  of 
broad  leather  suspenders  running  over  the  shoulders  and  connecting 
with  the  dossi£re.  The  metal  buckles  fixed  to  the  edge  of  the  plastron 
are  plainly  visible,  and  tongues  are  passed  through  perforations  of  the 
straps.  The  ends  of  these  straps  reach  the  centre  of  either  breastplate, 
and  are  strengthened  at  this  spot  by  an  additional  piece  of  leather. 
The  belt  is  a  broad  leather  band  starting  in  a  rosette  from  the  sternum, 
the  end  being  turned  upward  from  beneath  the  girdle. 

It  is  of  especial  interest  that  similar  clay  figures  representing  Loka- 
pala (the  term  is  perhaps  too  narrow,  and  should  rather  be  Dharmapala) 
have  been  discovered  in  Turkistan.4  These  are  likewise  enveloped  by 
suits  of  armor  much  resembling  those  of  the  Chinese  and  Japanese  clay 
statuettes.  It  is  therefore  obvious  that  in  this  case  the  question  is  not 
of  any  national  type  of  armor  which  the  Chinese  applied  to  the  clay 
figures,  but  that  this  armor  was  already  peculiar  to  the  latter  when  they 
were  received  in  the  channel  of  Buddhist  art  and  reproduced  by  the 
potters  of  China.  The  art  displayed  in  the  caves  of  Tun-huang  on  the 
boundary  of  Turkistan  and  China  may  be  made  directly  responsible  for 
the  transmission  of  this  particular  type  from  Turkistan  to  China;  for 
there  we  find  a  statue  of  a  Dharmapala  standing  on  a  demon,  and  with 
exactly  the  same  characteristics  as  our  Chinese  clay  figures.6  Was  this 
armor  ever  a  living  reality  in  China,  or  did  it  merely  remain  an  artistic 
motive?  It  is  not  very  likely  that  it  ever  became  of  any  practical  use 
among  the  Chinese.  It  is  not  described  in  the  official  records  of  the 
T'ang  dynasty;  at  least,  in  the  records  at  our  disposal  no  armor  is 

1  Styled  in  Sanskrit  krodha,  in  opposition  to  fdnta,  the  mild  forms.  A  mild  form 
of  Yama  seated  on  the  back  of  a  bull  was  painted  by  the  Buddhist  monk  Eri,  who  died 
in  935  (reproduction  in  Kokka,  No.  133,  1902). 

1  CHAVANNES,  Mission,  No.  353.  Besides  the  hero  and  warrior  type  of  Lokapala, 
we  have  in  the  same  period  a  nude  type  clad  only  with  an  apron,  and  with  fine 
modelling  of  strong,  well-developed  muscles  (ibid.,  Nos.  358,  359).  An  excellent 
marble  of  the  latter  type  is  in  the  collection  of  Field  Museum. 

*  Styled  in  Chinese  "King  of  Heaven  lifting  a  StQpa"  (To  t'a  rien  wang). 

*  A.  GR^NWEDEL,  Altbuddhistische  Kultstatten  in  Chinesisch-Turkistan,  p.  205. 
5  A.  MAYBON,  L'art  bouddhique  du  Turkestan  oriental,  p.  55  (L'art  dtcorattf, 

1910). 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  T'ANG  PERIOD  301 

described  that  could  freely  be  recognized  in  it.  Sheet  armor,  indeed, 
was  never  peculiar  to  China,  but  is  plainly  of  western  origin.  Above 
all,  this  type  of  armor,  even  if  it  should  have  sparsely  existed  here  and 
there  in  China  during  the  T'ang,  has  left  no  trace  in  any  later  period; 
it  does  not  survive  in  any  harness  of  the  Ming  and  Manchu  periods;  and 
this  is  a  signal  fact,  as  otherwise  the  T'ang  tradition  in  regard  to  armor 
was  still  alive  in  that  recent  age. 1 

Buddhism,  however,  may  have  influenced  Chinese  armature  to  a 
certain  degree.  A  peculiar  kind  of  armor  styled  "  lion-armor  "  (ni  k'ai) 
is  attributed  to  the  T'ang  period.2  The  helmet  and  the  coat  are  roughly 
figured  in  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'eng  (Fig.  48) ;  but  only  the  former  is  explained 
by  a  note  to  the  effect  that  for  each  single  piece  five  or  six  catties s  of 


1  In  Japan,  however,  specimens  of  such  armor,  though  very  rare,  do  occur. 
BASHFORD  DEAN  (Catalogue  of  Japanese  Armor,  p.  52)  has  figured  one  exactly  corre- 
sponding to  the  sheet  armor  of  our  clay  statuettes.  It  is  said  to  date  about  1500, 
and  "this  form  simulates  the  naked  body  and  is  known  as  the  Hotoke-do  (saint's 
breastplate),  an  Indian  saint  being  often  represented  with  the  body  naked."  This 
term  means  "Buddha's  breastplate  (Hotoke= Chinese  Fu,  "Buddha"),  and  clearly 
indicates  that  this  armor  was  made  in  imitation  of  that  represented  on  Buddhist 
statues.  Among  modern  Indian  armor,  a  very  similar  type  is  still  found  (W.  EGER- 
TON,  Illustrated  Handbook  of  Indian  Arms,  Plate  XII,  No.  587,  and  p.  124).  A 
somewhat  different  type  of  iron  sheet  armor  is  figured  by  W.  GOWLAND  (The  Dol- 
mens and  Burial  Mounds  in  Japan,  p.  48,  Westminster,  1897;  the  same  also  in 
YAGI  SHOZABURO,  Nihon  Kokogaku,  n,  p.  153,  Tokyo,  1898;  and  N.  G.  MUNRO, 
Prehistoric  Japan,  pp.  396,  417,  Yokohama,  1908).  It  is  likewise  a  harness  composed 
of  plastron  and  dossiere  which  are  formed  of  horizontal  plates  of  iron  skilfully  forged 
and  clinched  together  with  iron  rivets.  Gowland  makes  the  interesting  and  correct 
observation  that  both  body  armor  and  helmet  are  entirely  different  in  form  and  con- 
struction from  those  of  historical  times,  but  that  they  agree  very  closely  with  the 
armor  represented  on  the  terra-cotta  figures  called  haniwa.  It  is  very  interesting 
that  the  two  TORII,  in  the  publication  previously  mentioned  (Etudes  archgologiques, 
Journal  College  of  Science,  1914,  p.  73),  figure  such  a  haniwa  with  the  description 
"cuirasse  de  style  europe"en  trouve'e  en  Musashi,  Japon."  The  Japanese  authors, 
accordingly,  are  struck  by  the  "European"  character  of  this  armor.  It  is  now 
obvious  that  it  has  reached  the  East  by  way  of  Turkistan:  consequently  the  haniwa 
adorned  with  this  style  of  armor  cannot  be  older  than  the  age  of  the  T'ang  dynasty. 
Again  we  see  in  this  example  that  the  chronology  of  Japanese  antiquities  is  in  need  of 
revision. 

*  AMIOT  (Supplement  a  1'art  militaire  des  Chinois,  Memoires  concernant  les  Chinois, 
Vol.  VIII,  p.  373,  Paris,  1782)  was  the  first  to  describe  this  armor,  but  from  a  different 
source.  Amiot  styles  it  "cuirass  in  imitation  of  the  skin  of  the  animal  called  ni 
(resembling,  it  is  said,  the  lion)." 

1  The  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'eng,  deviating  from  its  ordinary  practice,  does  not  state  the 
source  of  this  passage,  which  is  evidently  not  extracted  from  a  contemporaneous 
record  of  the  T'ang  period,  which,  however,  seems  to  go  back  to  a  tradition  of  that 
time.  The  catty  (kin)  of  the  T'ang  period  is  not  identical  with  the  present  one. 
In  the  Museum  collection  there  is  a  spherical  bronze  weight  of  the  T'ang  period  (Cat. 
No.  1 16,892)  inlaid  with  gold  speckles  and  engraved  with  an  inscription  (the  grooves 
of  the  characters  being  laid  out  with  gold  foil)  yielding  the  date  672.  The  weight  is 
stated  in  this  inscription  as  being  i  pound  (catty)  8  ounces,  while  it  is  2  pounds  in 
our  weight.  According  to  the  present  Chinese  standard,  it  weighs  I  pound  11.32 
ounces,  or  27.32  ounces.  Consequently  I  ounce  of  the  T'ang  period  is  equal  to  1.138 
modern  Chinese  ounce,  and  I  pound  of  the  T'ang  period  is  equal  to  18.24  ounces 
modern. 


302 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


FIG.  48. 
"Lion-Armor"  and   "Lion-Helmet"  of  the  T'ang  Period  (from  T'u  sku  tti  ch'titg). 


FIG.  49. 
"Lion-Helmet"  of  the  T'ang  Period  (from  Wu  pei  chi). 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  TANG  PERIOD  303 

pure  iron  mixed  with  one  catty  of  steel  are  required,  and  that  a  skin 
cut  in  five  layers,  to  the  weight  of  two  catties,  is  laid  around  this  founda- 
tion.1 The  term  ni  k'uei  is  not  interpreted  in  this  passage;  but  this 
word  ni  occurs  only  in  the  combination  suan-ni,  designating  the  lion. 
We  noticed  above  (p.  276)  that  Ma  Sui  of  the  eighth  century  fashioned 
helmets  in  the  shape  of  lions.  A  lion-helmet  (suan-ni  mou)  is  mentioned 
as  having  been  in  the  possession  of  General  Han  Shi-chung,  who  died 
in  usi.2 

A  similar  helmet  with  the  same  designation  is  illustrated  also  in  the 
Wu  pei  chi 3  (Fig.  49) ;  and  the  descriptive  text  there  given  is  identical 
with  that  of  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'eng;  nevertheless  the  illustration  of  the  latter 
is  not  derived  in  this  case  from  that  book,  as  the  knob  of  the  helmet 
and  the  number  of  plate-rows  in  the  attached  coif  of  the  helmet  are 
different,  being  six  in  the  T'u  shu,  and  five  in  the  Wu  pei  chi.  It  will  be 
noticed  that  the  triangles  on  the  plates  are  alternately  drawn  point 
upward  or  downward,  and  that  the  T'u  shu  begins  with  points  down- 
ward, the  other  book  with  points  upward:  the  two  sketches  must  there- 
fore come  from  different  sources. 

Still  more  curious  is  the  fact  that  the  Wu  pei  chi 4  illustrates  an  armor 
of  a  different  design  under  the  same  name,  T'ang  ni  k'ai  (Fig.  50) .  While 
the  two  drawings  agree  fairly  well  in  the  upper  portions,  the  breast  and 
sleeve  coverings,  they  are  considerably  at  variance  in  the  middle  and 
lower  parts,  though  notwithstanding  both  evidently  represent  the  same 
type  of  armor.  The  cut  of  the  Wu  pei  chi  is  identical  with  the  one 
figured  by  AMIOT;S  and  the  quaint  text  supplied  by  him  is  found  there 
also.  It  runs  thus:  "The  lion-armor  of  the  T'ang.  First,  five  catties 
of  the  '  plant  penetrating  into  the  bones' 6  and  three  catties  of  radish- 
seeds  are  mixed  into  a  pap  which  is  placed  in  clear  water  to  the  quantity 
of  a  hundred  catties,  and  boiled  till  it  bubbles  two  hundred  times.  The 
residue  is  removed,  and  five  scales  of  the  pangolin7  are  added;  further, 


1  Several  designations  for  other  kinds  of  helmets  are  added,  and  it  is  further 
said  that  in  the  south  also  old  cotton  is  used  in  their  making. 

1  GILES,  Biographical  Dictionary,  p.  251.  The  passage  alluded  to  above  is  con- 
tained in  the  biography  of  Han  Shi-chung  in  the  Annals  of  the  Sung  Dynasty  (Sung 
ski,  Ch.  364,  p.  6  b).  A  "lion-armor"  (shi-tse  kia)  is  mentioned  in  the  Annals  of 
the  Yuan  Dynasty  ( Yuan  ski,  Ch.  79,  p.  24  b,  K'ien-lung  edition). 

1  Ch.  105,  p.  6. 

4  L.  c.t  p.  15. 

•  L.  c.,  Plate  XXVIII. 

•  Tou  ku  ts'ao,  identified  with  Mercurialis  Itiocarpa,  an  euphorbiaceous  plant 
(G.  A.  STUART,  Chinese  Materia  Medica  revised  from  P.  Porter  Smith's  Work , 
p.  263,  Shanghai,  1911). 

T  Ch'uan  shan  kia,  the  scaly  ant-eater  (Manis  tetra  dactyla).  The  word  ch'uan 
is  here  written  with  the  character '  river '  (No.  2728)  instead  of  No.  2739.  This  animal 


3°4 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


rrmmmmti 


PIG.  50. 
'Lion- Armor"  of  the  Tang  Period  (from  Wu  pet  cht). 


DEFENSIVE  ARMOR  OF  THE  T'ANG  PERIOD  305 

three  catties  of  salt  of  Ta-t'ung,  three  catties  of  saltpetre,  five  ounces  of 
stony  nitre,  and  half  a  catty  of  sal-ammoniac.  This  mixture  is  tightly 
shut  up  in  a  kettle,  and  boiled  for  a  day  and  night.  Then  the  kettle 
is  opened,  and  the  mass  is  beaten  with  a  leather  ladle  to  secure  various 
grades  of  thickness,  and  formed  into  the  shapes  of  willow-leaves,  fish- 
scales,  square  leaves,  and  rectangles.  This  armor  has  the  advantage 
of  being  light  in  weight,  and  is  much  employed  in  the  south." 

This  is  apparently  an  alchemical  recipe  intended  to  produce  a  cut- 
proof  body  protection.  The  ingredients  like  the  scales  of  the  pangolin 
rest  on  sympathetic  notions.  Of  course,  it  should  not  be  understood 
with  Amiot  that  the  armor  was  manufactured  from  this  substance;  the 
illustrations  show  that  the  question  is  that  of  a  substantial  metal  plate 
armor,  although  in  the  text  it  is  a  question  of  scales,  and  that  the  metal 
plates  were  covered  with  this  essence.  The  idea  of  rendering  the  wearer 
invulnerable  was  perhaps  responsible  for  the  title  of  "lion-armor;"  and 
this  name,  which  conveys  the  impression  of  a  rendering  of  Sanskrit 
simhavarman,  savors  of  Indian-Buddhist  influence.  Indeed,  on  ex- 
amining closely  the  two  designs  of  this  armor,  we  cannot  fail  to  notice 
that  it  is  identical  with  the  one  represented  in  the  late  Buddhist  art  of 
China  during  the  Ming  period,  especially  in  the  statues  of  Wei-t'o  (Veda) 
and  the  Four  Heavenly  Kings,  the  guardians  of  the  world  and  armed 
defensors  of  the  Buddhist  religion.  Numerous  specimens  of  these  in 
all  dimensions,  carved  from  wood  or  cast  in  bronze,  are  in  the  Museum's 
collection;  whatever  their  artistic  and  scientific  interest  may  be,  they 
have  no  value  for  the  study  of  body  armor  which  is  mechanically  copied 
in  various  conventional  and  stereotyped  designs  not  properly  understood 
by  the  artists. 

is  an  inhabitant  of  Fukien  Province  and  Formosa,  and  has  its  trunk,  limbs,  and  tail 
covered  with  large,  horny,  imbricated  scales,  which  it  elevates  in  rolling  itself  into  a 
ball  when  defending  itself  against  an  enemy;  the  scales  are  medicinally  employed 
(see  J.  H.  EDWARDS,  China  Review,  Vol.  XXII,  p.  714).  Regarding  the  word  "pan- 
golin" see  YULE  and  BURNELL  (Hobson-Jobson,  p.  668),  and  A.  MARRB  (Petit 
Vocabulaire  des  mots  malays  que  1'  usage  a  introduits  dans  les  langues  d'Europe,  p.  1 1 , 
Rome,  1866). 


VII.  HORSE  ARMOR  AND  CLAY  FIGURES 
OF  HORSES 

Steeds  shielded  with  armor  are  alluded  to  as  early  as  the  Shi  king. 
It  appears  that  horses  harnessed  to  the  war-chariots  were  sometimes 
covered  at  that  period  with  a  means  of  defence,1  which,  judging  from 
the  use  of  the  word  kiai  (compare  p.  195)  in  this  connection,  seems  to 
have  been  of  the  type  of  scale  armor,  the  scales  being  cut  out  of  thin 
strips  of  hide  or  leather.  During  the  Ch'un  Ts'iu  period,  the  horses  of 
the  war-chariots  were  likewise  armored.2  This  horse  armor  of  the 
archaic  epoch  was  a  plain  caparison,  and  widely  different  from  the  com- 
plex and  composite  armor  which,  as  we  know  with  certainty,  existed  in 
the  Mongol  period. 

As  to  metal  armor  for  horses  (ma  k'ai),  we  hear  it  mentioned  for 
the  first  time  toward  the  end  of  or  shortly  after  the  Han,  in  two  small 
compositions  of  the  famed  usurper  Ts'ao  Ts'ao,  who  died  in  220  A.D., 
and  of  his  son  Ts'ao  Chi  (192-232).  The  latter  says  that  the  ancient 
emperors  bestowed  on  their  servants  certain  kinds  of  armor  styled 
"shining  like  ink"  (mo  kuang)  and  "brilliant  lustre"  (ming  kuang),  an 
armor  with  double  seat  in  the  trousers,  an  armor  with  rings  and  chains, 
and  a  set  of  horse  metal  armor  (ma  k'ai).  This  passage  is  very  sus- 
picious because  of  its  retrospective  character:  the  metal  armor  (k'ai), 
while  it  existed  at  the  author's  time,  had  not  yet  appeared  in  the  days 
of  the  early  emperors;  and  the  word  is  here  used  thrice  consecutively 
with  reference  to  them.  The  "ring  and  chain  armor,"  as  previously 

1  LEGGE,  Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  131,  194.  LEGGE  translates  in  the  one 
case  "the  chariot  with  its  team  in  mail,"  and  in  the  other  case  "his  mail-covered 
team,"  explaining  that  the  mail  for  the  horses  was  made  of  thin  plates  of  metal, 
scale-like.  This  interpretation  is  erroneous.  The  same  misconception  occurs  in 
S.  COUVREUR'S  translation  of  the  Shi  king  (p.  136),  "les  quatre  cheyaux  munis  de 
minces  cuirasses  de  me'tal,"  and  is  adopted  by  GILES  (No.  1734);  while  in  the  other 
passage  COUVREUR  (p.  90)  is  correct  in  translating  "les  quatre  chevaux  munis  de 
cuirasses,"  provided  cuirasses  is  taken  in  its  literal  sense  of  "hide  armor."  It  is 
impossible  to  assume  that  during  a  period  when  metal  armor  for  the  protection  of  the 
human  body  was  entirely  unknown,  it  should  have  been  utilized  in  guarding  a  horse. 
Man  of  that  age  could  conceive  and  employ  no  other  armor  for  his  horse  than 
for  himself;  and  since  he  was  acquainted  only  with  plain  hide  armor  and  hide  scale 
armor,  these  two  types  must  have  served  likewise  for  the  horse,  the  term  kiai  being 
in  favor  of  scale  armor.  The  translations  of  the  two  passages  of  Shi  king  have  to  be 
corrected  accordingly.  The  frontlets  on  the  foreheads  of  the  horses  (yang,  No.  12,882) , 
once  mentioned  in  Shi  king  (LEGGE,  Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  IV,  p.  547)  and  once  in 
Tso  chuan,  did  not  form  part  of  an  armor,  but  were  metal  ornaments  which  served  for 
purely  decorative  purposes,  and  emitted  pleasing  sounds  when  the  animal  moved. 

*  LEGGE,  /.  c.,  Vol.  V,  p.  345. 

306 


HORSE  ARMOR  3°7 

pointed  out  (p.  174),  is  an  isolated  instance  in  this  period,  and  smacks 
of  anachronism.  For  this  reason  also  the  metal  horse  mail  must  be 
looked  upon  with  diffidence,  and  I  am  not  inclined  to  attribute  much 
importance  to  this  text. 


PIG.  51. 

Armored  Cavalier  on  Caparisoned  Horse.  Clay  Figure  in  Collection  of  Mr.  G.  Eumorfopoulos. 

London  (after  Burlington  Pine  Arts  Club,  Exhibition  of  Early  Chines* 

Pottery,  Plate  iv). 

In  519  A.D.,  A-na-kuai,  the  King  of  the  Juan-juan,1  presented  to  the 
Emperor  Su-tsung  of  the  Wei  dynasty  one  set  of  fine  and  brilliant1 
mail  complete  for  man  and  horse  (j&n  ma  k'ai),  and  six  sets  of  iron  mail 
for  man  and  horse.8 

Caparisoned  war-horses  are  repeatedly  mentioned  in  the  History  of 


1  He  committed  suicide  in  552,  after  having  been  vanquished  by  the  Turks 
(HIRTH,  Nachworte  zur  Inschrift  des  Tonjukuk,  p.  no). 

*  This  attribute  is  invariably  used  with  reference  to  iron  armor  with  varnished 
or  polished  plates. 

1  Pet  shi,  Ch.  98,  p.  6. 


308  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

the  T'ang  Dynasty.  The  rebel  Kao  K'ai-tao,  who  conquered  Yu-yang 
in  618  and  styled  himself  Prince  of  Yen,  for  example,  was  in  possession 
of  several  thousand  mail-clad  horses  and  ten  thousand  men. l  Among 
the  types  of  armor  officially  established  by  the  T'ang  dynasty  we  find 
also  "horse  cuirasses"  (ma  kia);  and  a  charger  caparisoned  in  this 
manner  appears  in  a  contemporaneous  clay  figure  (Fig.  51)  coated  with 
a  yellow  glaze.  The  armor  covers  the  war-horse  almost  down  to  its 
knees;  and  as  it  appears  as  a  solid  mass  without  any  divisions,  it  may  be 
one  of  hide  (also  the  rider  apparently  wears  a  hide  armor) ;  it  is  possible, 
however,  that  the  hide  is  merely  the  exterior  cover,  and  is  placed  over  an 
armor  of  solid  plate  mail  indicated  by  the  row  of  laminae  along  the  lower 
edge.2 

Under  the  Sung  dynasty  the  horses  received  facial  masks  of  copper.3 
According  to  Ts'e  fu  yuan  kuei,  Chang  Yen-tse",  Governor  of  King- 
chou,4  presented  in  942,  on  his  arrival  at  the  capital,  in  order  to  show  his 
gratitude  for  favors  received,  nine  horses,  and  again  fifty  horses  to- 
gether with  silver  saddles  and  bridles,  and  iron  armor  for  the  protection 
of  the  faces  of  horses  and  men;  at  a  later  date  he  presented  fifty 
horses  with  gold  saddles  and  bridles,  with  complete  armor  for  the 
horses  and  men. 

The  furniture  of  the  horses  of  the  Mongols  is  described  by  the 
Franciscan  Piano  Carpini  in  1246*  It  was  of  two  kinds, —  iron  plate 
mail,  as  described  in  Chapter  V,  and  leather  scale  armor.  The  latter 
consisted  of  five  parts, —  the  body  armor  in  two  halves  extending  from 
the  head  to  the  tail,  and  fastened  to  the  saddle,  a  protection  for  the 
croup,  a  neck-guard,  a  breastplate  reaching  down  to  the  knees,  and  an 
iron  lamina  on  the  forehead  (being  the  chanfrin). 

In  another  passage  the  same  writer  says  that  many  of  the  horses  of 
Kuyuk  had  bits,  breastplates,  saddles,  and  cruppers,  quite  twenty  marks' 
worth  of  gold.6  The  Armenian  historian  Haithon  states  that  the  horses 
of  the  Mongols,  like  their  riders,  were  clothed  with  leather  armor.7 

Interesting  illustrations  depicting  the  single  pieces  making  the  com- 
plete furniture  of  the  horse  are  preserved  in  the  Wu  pei  chi  (Figs.  52-54) 

1  Tang  shu,  Ch.  86,  p.  4  b. 

1  Also  among  the  Moghuls  the  horses  were  first  covered  with  mail,  over  which 
was  put  a  decorated  quilt  (see  H.  BLOCHMANN,  Ain  I  Akbari,  Vol.  I,  Plate  XIV,  and 
the  explanation  on  p.  xi). 

*  Sung  shi,  Ch.  197,  p.  2. 

4  In  Kan-su  Province  (PLAYFAIR,  Cities  and  Towns  of  China,  2d  ed.,  No.  1112). 
8  Edition  of  G.  PULL£,  p.  87  (Studi  italiani  di  filologia  indo-iranica,  Vol.  IX, 
Firenze,  1913).    This  passage  is  lacking  in  the  former  editions  of  Carpini. 

*  W.  W.  ROCKHILL,  The  Journey  of  William  of  Rubruck,  p.  20. 

7  G.  ALTUNIAN,  Die  Mongolen  und  ihre  Eroberungen,  p.  81  (Berlin,  1911). 


HORSE  ARMOR 


FIG.  52. 
Chanfrin  and  Armor  for  the  Croup  of  a  Horse  (from  W*  pei  chf). 


3io 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


FIG.  53. 
Neck-Guard  and  Breastplate  of  Horse  (from  Wu  pet  chf). 


HORSE  ARMOR 


?mg«ms> 


r —         .r*\  • '  _j-u_j— >-_j«j- i^-j->- 

/'o7o,^v.o;o.o:p:o; 
bfe^/JLaJ-JoCH 


FIG.  64. 
Half-Chanfrin  and  Trunk  Mail  of  Horse  (from  Wu  pei  chi). 


312 


CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 


of  1 6  2 1 ,  where  no  description  of  them ,  however,  is  given .  The  armor  parts 
for  the  croup,  neck,  breast,  and  trunk,  consist  of  plate  mail ;  they  represent 
the  tradition  of  the  Ming  period,  and  may  be  identical  with  those  of  the 
Yuan.  It  is  not  known  to  me  whether  horse  armature  was  still  employed 
under  the  Manchu  dynasty.  Fig.  55  is  here  inserted  after  CIBOT;  from 
what  Chinese  source  this  illustration  is  derived  I  do  not  know.  It  is 


FIG.  55. 

Chinese  Sketch  of  Caparisoned  Horse  (from  L.  P.  Cibot,  Lettre  sur  les  caracteres 
chinois,  Brussels,  1773). 

interesting  as  showing  a  horse  with  complete  equipment, — a  facial  mask 
or  frontal  with  chanfrin  of  scale  armor,  neck  and  shoulder  guards  of 
plate  mail,  and  a  chabraque  enveloping  the  trunk. 

From  what  has  been  set  forth  above  in  regard  to  the  relations  be- 
tween Iran  and  China,  it  appears  also  that  Chinese  horse  mail  might 
have  been  influenced  from  the  same  direction.  This  influence  is  very 
probable ;  but  the  discussion  of  this  matter  may  be  left  for  the  present,  as 
it  is  preferable  to  wait  until  a  thorough  investigation  of  Iranian  horse 
mail  has  been  made  by  a  competent  specialist;  ample  material  for  such 
study  is  particularly  furnished  by  the  Persian  miniatures.1 


1  In  an  illuminated  manuscript  of  the  Shah-nameh  preserved  in  the  Royal  Li- 
brary of  Munich,  and  representing  the  costume  and  arms  of  the  Persians  in  the 
seventeenth  century,  according  to  Egerton,  the  combatants  generally  wear  conical 
helmets  with  solid  guards  over  the  neck  and  ears.  The  horses  as  well  as  their  riders 
have  a  complete  covering  of  mail  with  alternate  rows  of  gold  and  silver  scales  (W. 
EGERTON,  111.  Handbook  of  Indian  Arms,  p.  142).  In  ancient  India,  elephants  and 
horses  were  protected  by  armor  (G.  OPPERT,  On  the  Weapons,  Army  Organization, 
and  Political  Maxims  of  the  Ancient  Hindus,  p.  8,  Madras,  1880).  The  Chinese 


CLAY  FIGURES  OF  HORSES  313 

Numerous  clay  figures  of  horses  and  cavaliers  have  been  unearthed 
in  recent  years  from  the  graves  of  Shen-si  and  Ho-nan,  and  a  brief 
description  of  these  may  find  a  suitable  place  here.  Particulars  in 
regard  to  the  history  of  the  burial  of  such  clay  figures  and  their  signifi- 
cance will  be  given  in  Part  II.  The  observation  of  the  local  differentia- 
tions is  an  essential  point  of  view  to  be  pursued  in  the  study  of  these 
clay  figures. 

The  divergence  between  the  grave-finds  of  Ho-nan  and  Shen-si  is 
peculiarly  manifest  in  the  horses.  Those  of  Shen-si  usually  represent 
the  bare  horse  in  a  sober  and  mechanical  conception ; l  those  of  Ho-nan 
illustrate  more  realistic  types,  always  harnessed,  in  a  variety  of  poses 
effected  particularly  by  manifold  turns  of  the  neck.  Most  of  the  horses 
are  posed  on  a  flat  rectangular  clay  base.  Among  seven  clay  horses  of 
miniature  size  acquired  by  the  writer  at  Si-ngan  fu,  six  are  almost 
identical,  while  the  seventh  is  differentiated  only  in  that  the  mane  is 
coarsely  fashioned.  The  horse  on  Plate  LXII  is  an  exception,  being 
somewhat  better  shaped,  and  coated  with  soft  lead  glazes  in  three  colors, 
—  a  deep  brown,  a  light  yellow,  and  a  plant  green;  also  saddle  and  sad- 
dle-cloth are  represented  (but  not  the  stirrups);  the  saddle  is  padded 
with  a  textile  material  gracefully  draped  on  both  sides.  The  horse 
shown  on  Plate  LXII  I  excels  by  its  massive  dimensions,  but  is  other- 
wise the  outcome  of  the  routine  work  of  an  ordinary  craftsman.  The 
Ho-nan  horses,  on  the  other  hand,  appeal  to  us  by  the  gracefulness  of 
their  motions,  and  the  variety  of  actions  in  which  they  are  represented 
(Plates  LXIV,  LXV) ;  also  the  details  of  the  harness  are  better  and  more 
efficiently  worked  out.  In  the  horse  on  Plate  LXVI,  the  trappings  with 
their  ornaments  in  metal,  the  tinkling  bells  on  the  breastband,  as  well  as 
the  lotus-flower  designs  on  the  crupper,  are  neatly  moulded  in  relief. 

The  clay  figure  of  the  horse  on  Plate  LXVII,  found  in  fragmentary 
condition  north  of  the  city  of  Ho-nan  fu  in  1910,  is  notable  for  its  un- 
usual dimensions  and  its  perfect  glazing.2  The  natural  coloration  of  the 
animal  is  reproduced  by  a  light-yellow  soft  lead  glaze;  the  saddle,  of  the 

pilgrim  Huan  Tsang  reports  that  the  Indian  war-elephants  were  covered  with  strong 
armature  (S.  BEAL,  Buddhist  Records  of  the  Western  World,  Vol.  I,  p.  82).  In 
Tibet  the  high  officers  sometimes  clothe  their  horse  with  armor,  and  a  set  was  cap- 
tured by  the  British  expedition  under  Colonel  Younghusband.  A  Tibetan  cavalry- 
man whose  horse  is  clad  with  chanfrin,  neck  and  breast  guard,  is  pictured  in  WAD- 
DELL'S  Lhasa  and  its  Mysteries  (Plate  opp.  p.  168). 

1  Sometimes  a  mere  saddle  is  represented  without  any  other  trappings;  such  a 
horse  will  be  figured  in  Part  II  as  forming  part  of  a  complete  set  of  finds  from  the  same 
grave. 

1  The  technique  and  colors  of  these  glazes  are  identical  with  those  on  the  statue 
of  the  Arhat  recently  acquired  by  the  British  Museum,  and  ably  described  by  R.  L. 
HOBSON  (Burlington  Magazine,  Vol.  XXV,  1914,  pp.  69-73).  The  excellent  colored 
plate  accompanying  this  article  affords  a  good  view  of  the  T'ang  potter's  glazes. 


314  CHINESE  CLAY  FIGURES 

same  form  as  the  one  in  use  at  present,  is  glazed  a  plant  green;  the  double 
saddle-cloth  underneath  it,  dark  brown  intermingled  with  green.  The 
seat  of  the  saddle  is  padded  with  a  material  arranged  in  graceful  drapery. 
The  mane  is  brown;  the  ornamental  metal  pieces  attached  to  the  head- 
stall, the  breastband,  and  crupper  are  glazed  green.  The  design  which 
is  brought  out  on  these  is  characteristic  of  the  T'ang  period,  and  found 
also  as  relief  decoration  on  coeval  pottery  vases.1 

The  horses  on  which  human  figures  are  mounted  occupy  a  special 
place.  Their  significance  in  relation  to  the  dead  may  be  ascertained 
from  their  position  in  the  grave:  they  were  found  either  as  preceding 
or  as  following  the  coffin.  This  seems  to  allude  to  the  fact  that  they 
were  regarded  as  the  mounted  escorts  of  the  occupant  of  the  grave,  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  living  one,  when  on  an  official  visit  riding  in  a 
cart  or  in  a  sedan-chair,  is  accompanied  by  outriders  in  front  and  in  the 
rear.  As  only  persons  of  rank  were  granted  this  privilege,  it  seems 
certain  that  the  same  rule  was  observed  in  the  grave,  and  that  the  clay 
statuettes  of  cavaliers  appertain  to  dignitaries. 

From  Shen-si  only  figures  of  male  riders  are  known  to  me  (Plates 
LXVIII-LXX).  The  Shen-si  horses  are  of  somewhat  stronger  build, 
taller,  and  with  more  developed  chests,  than  the  Ho-nan  breed.  In  the 
former,  the  curly  hair  on  the  forehead  is  parted  and  combed  toward  the 
sides,  while  in  the  latter  it  hangs  straight  downward.  The  men  wear 
a  pompon  in  the  front  of  their  round  caps,  and  are  strangely  clad  in  long 
gowns.  The  cavalier  on  Plate  LXVIII  makes  a  poor  figure  as  a  horse- 
man, and  shows  that  the  Chinese  of  the  T'ang  period  had  as  poor  a 
knowledge  of  the  art  of  riding  as  at  present.  The  women  of  Ho-nan 
are  better  seated  in  the  saddle  than  the  men  of  Shen-si.  The  rider  in 
question  has  his  left  foot  pushed  forward  and  his  right  foot  backward; 
his  hands  come  too  near  to  the  horse's  neck,  and  seem  to  be  in  motion. 

1  An  illustration  of  such  a  vase  will  be  found  in  Part  II.  Chinese  horse- trappings 
of  the  T'ang  period  may  be  viewed  in  TOyei  Shuko,  Vol.  Ill,  Plates  196,  197.  In 
none  of  the  clay  figures  which  have  come  to  my  notice  is  the  saddle-girth  represented. 
Judging  from  the  clay  figures,  saddlery  must  have  been  almost  the  same  in  the 
T'ang  period  as  at  present.  The  frame  of  the  modern  saddle  is  carved  from  wood, 
frequently  covered  with  shagreen  and  edged  with  metal-work,  usually  iron  incrusted 
with  silver  wire  forming  geometric  or  floral  designs.  The  seat  is  padded  with  a  blue 
or  red  satin  or  velvet  cover.  There  are,  as  a  rule,  two  saddle-cloths,  the  lower  one  of 
wadded  cotton  cloth,  the  upper  either  of  leather,  ornamented  with  designs  in  color 
or  appliqu6  patterns,  or  of  wool  or  silk  carpeting.  A  single  bridle  of  cotton  webbing 
is  used.  Headpiece,  breastband,  and  crupper  are  usually  decorated  with  brass 
work,  or  sometimes  with  silver  gilt.  A  neckcollar  fitted  with  small  brass  bells  is  occa- 
sionally added.  Two  tassels  of  red-dyed  horse-hair  are  suspended,  the  one  from  the 
breastband,  the  other  from  the  band  under  the  chin.  The  stirrups  are  large  and 
heavy  with  solid  bases  ellipsoid  in  shape,  usually  of  iron  damaskeened  with  silver, 
more  rarely  of  brass.  In  Kan-su  and  north-eastern  Tibet,  wooden  stirrups  were 
also  observed  and  collected  by  the  writer;  these  are  made  as  substitutes  only  when  iron 
is  lacking.  Compare  also  Plate  XXII. 


CLAY  FIGURES  OF  HORSES  315 

Whoever  has  observed  Chinese  riding  will  have  witnessed  such  perform- 
ances; and  in  this  case  the  potter  must  be  granted  all  credit  for  his 
power  of  observation.  There  is  another  type  of  mounted  soldier  from 
Shen-si,  whose  left  hand  appears  as  if  seizing  the  bridles,  while  he  is 
pressing  his  right  hand  against  his  chest  (Plate  LXIX,  Fig.  2). 

The  figure  on  Plate  LXX  is  curious  in  exhibiting  a  helmeted  soldier 
rising  in  the  saddle  in  an  upright  position,  in  order  to  salute  by  lifting 
his  folded  hands  to  the  height  of  his  face.  The  headstall  of  the  horse  is 
decorated  with  floral  ornaments,  probably  chased  in  metal. 

In  the  Ho-nan  types,  the  horses  prick  up  their  ears;  their  necks  are 
elegantly  curved;  the  manes  are  either  upright,  or  falling  down  to  the 
right  side,  and  are  carefully  modelled.  In  all  Ho-nan  figures  of  riders 
known  to  me,  the  stirrups  are  represented.1  Fig.  i  of  Plate  LXIX 
illustrates  a  female  rider  very  well  seated;  the  body  of  the  clay  is  coated 
with  a  yellowish-green  glaze,  and  the  mane  of  the  animal  is  well  treated; 
but  the  form  of  the  head  is  bad.  In  the  figure  on  Plate  LXXI  the  mane 
of  the  steed  is  painted  vermilion.  The  woman2  wears  male  attire,  a 
girdled  coat  with  triangular  lapels  (as  in  our  man's  clothing),  trousers, 
and  boots;  she  is  sitting  straight  and  with  arms  crossed,  the  short  sleeves 
rendering  the  hands  visible.  The  saddle-cloth  is  painted  with  small 
circles  in  black  ink,  and  thus  is  presumably  intended  for  a  panther's 
skin.  The  reins  and  crupper  likewise  are  so  decorated,  and  there  are 
a  few  black  circles  on  the  neck  of  the  animal.  The  stirrups  are  repre- 
sented. 

The  horse  illustrated  on  Plate  LXXII  is  fairly  well  modelled.  The 
neck  is  painted  red,  and  overstrewn  with  white  spots.  Headstall  and 
bridle  are  painted  in  black  outlines,  while  the  crupper  is  brought  out  in 
relief.  The  muscles  of  the  head,  the  nostrils,  the  jaws  (agape),  teeth, 
and  tongue  are  carefully  modelled.  The  woman,  almost  Japanese  in 
expression,  wears  a  flat  cap,  from  which  a  long  ribbon  is  floating  down 
her  back.  Her  dress  is  painted  a  brown-red.  Her  right  arm  is  hanging 
down,  her  left  hand  is  raised  to  seize  the  bridles.  The  saddle-cloth 
seems  to  be  a  cotton  quilt. 

1  As  has  already  been  shown  by  F.  HIRTH  (Zeitschrift  fur  Ethnologic,  1890, 
Verhandlungen,  p.  209),  stirrups  were  in  vogue  during  the  T'ang  period;  the  people 
availed  themselves  of  iron  stirrups,  those  of  the  dignitaries  were  made  from  the  metal 
alloy  called  t'ou-shi. 

1  Horseback-riding  was  a  common  exercise  for  women  in  the  T'ang  period. 
Female  equestrians  were  represented  by  pictorial  art.  Yang  Kuei-fei  was  painted  in 
the  act  of  mounting  on  horseback  (GILES,  Introduction  to  the  History  of  Chinese 
Pictorial  Art,  p.  50).  In  the  Gallery  of  the  Sung  Emperors  there  was  a  picture  by 
Chang  Suan,  representing  a  Japanese  woman  on  horseback  (Suan  ho  hua  p'u,  Ch.  5, 
p.  6). 


London.) 

I 

1 

1 

1 

a 

;r. 

3 

i 

^c 

L 

•p 

0 

B 

I 

g" 

c 

•1 

c 

- 

*• 

00 

0 
3 

s 

1 

a 

•c 

0 
0 

1 

_5 
"rt 

d 

,:£ 

-3 

'~-i: 

'o 

c 

o 

•+3 

•a 

rj 

•^ 

'u 

c 

9 

X 

LU 

• 
O 
1 

w 

n 

0) 

•5 

"o 

•s 

1 
t 

2 

c 

0 

c. 

g 

H 

CL 

i 

z 

T< 

I 

*3 

1 

"c 

S 
Q 

i 

—  • 

ft 


X     M 

Q  2 


—     3     v,   'C 

i  1^  § 

BWg'i 

ui     M   rt    C 

la  If 

<u 


°   §   c 


vU        W, 

<3     J3 


rt 
-  T3 
S  C 
3  03 


_    C     w   -  . 

i?  s  a  ""> 

1-1  'd    _,   H?  « 
5   5,3   B   § 

"M  W    o  'S. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORV. 


§nisd  aig^fil  owi  sriJ 
.3  .3  .iM 


IX   3TAJ9 

1  .q  993)  HOMflA  sarH 

owi  io  nbla-saoom  baon&t  .fcnsri  mcnl 

.iigailT  srii  moiH     .rarftegoJ  bdassiq  ^Udgii 


TLINGIT  HIDE  ARMOR. 


PLATE  XI. 

AMERICAN  HIDE  ARMOR  (see  p.  183). 

Made  from  hard,  tanned  moose-skin  of  two  thicknesses,  the  two  layers  being 
tightly  pressed  together.  From  the  Tlingit,  Alaska.  Presented  by  Mr.  E.  E.  Ayer. 
Cat.  No.  18165. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,   VOL.  XIII,    PL.  XI. 


TLINGIT  HIDE  ARMOR. 


- 

r.         o 


5  s 


-d   a> 
o   o- 

O     ctf 

£0 

** 
G  W 

"^  § 

1-1  S 

5  "In 

T3   fij    jjT 

&     O  "S) 

•      G  '5  'S 

--^    •*"     c8  HH 

.«  ^^ 

4i  r 


_:     ei 

s    i 

uJ       04 
< 

a! 


^ 

1O 


8  213 
.fo  PQ 

!_, 


la 

S| 

«      OT 


'S  O  M 

M  A3  >  *5 

i  .3  -5 

ffi  •§  a>  ^ 

O  .2  -^  'O 

H  <u  a  .H 

£  .s  g  js 

w  - 


"S  o 

li 


a  .a 

<u    c 


£   PH 

rt     »., 


13 


H^la 
§  O  « 


FIELD  MUSEUM 


ANTHROPOLC 


'^  ,tdo 

1  uri  gngnfiOTai^sqifia  aaorlw 
ov/i  arfj  nss 


f^  no  ,9dhT 


TLINOIT  CUIAASS  CXJVEHED  WITH  CHINESE  COINS. 


PLATE  XIII. 

AMERICAN  HIDE  ARMOR  (see  p.  184). 

Covered  with  about  a  thousand  Chinese  coins  inscribed  with  the  periods  Shun- 
chi,  K'ang-hi,  Yung-cheng,  and  K'ien-lung,  and  procured  in  trade  from  the  Russians, 
whose  ships,  exchanging  the  furs  of  the  North  Pacific  with  the  Chinese  for  tea,  plied 
constantly  between  the  two  countries,  by  which  means  many  Chinese  articles  found 
their  way  to  Alaska.  Secured  by  Lieut.  G.  T.  Emmons  from  the  Tlingit,  Tarku 
Tribe,  on  the  Tarku  River,  Alaska.  Cat.  No.  78559. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,   VOL.  XIII,    PL.  XIII. 


TLINGIT  CUIRASS  COVERED  WITH  CHINESE  COINS. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


E  oJ  sirw 

SliT      .891.603  19ll. 

batosnnoo  egnn 


ariT 


J  oJ  i9vo  ablol  teoo 
9riT  .abroo  yd 
;mo  08  ,£ 


I 


CHJNESE  ARMOR  OF  COPPER  SCALES. 


PLATE  XIV. 

COPPER  SCALE  ARMOR  (see  p.  196). 

The  copper  scales  are  imbricated,  and  fastened  by  means  of  brass  wire  to  a 
foundation  of  sackcloth.  The  collar  consists  of  a  single  row  of  smaller  scales.  The 
coat  folds  over  to  the  right  side,  and  is  fastened  by  three  pairs  of  brass  rings  connected 
by  cords.  The  epaulets  are  cut  out  of  leather.  Secured  in  Ch'eng-tu,  Sze-ch'uan. 
Length,  80  cm;  weight,  38 X  Ibs.  Cat.  No.  118349. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY.   VOL.  XIII,    PL.  XIV. 


I 


CHINESE  ARMOR  OF  COPPER  SCALES. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


1 

I    .' :      .".; 


..VX 
DIAHDflA   TO 

\o  §nbBoo  B  i9vo  xfaimav 
i  ^smiail  abid  e  aiBsw  sH     Juo  *d§troid  ad 
JHH^feBf1  st  a^     .S3V9  boofiifs-bnomlB  bus 
^^II^H^^Hk^  ^n£(^  ^rf§"  2'^  n'  sniiteibneid 

!j  boa  ,wollori  ei  STjugS  ariT    .bai/org  i9bm; 

OBD-oH 


L 


bsttoi 


CLAY  FIGURE  REPRESENT; 


PLATE  XV. 

CLAY  FIGURE  REPRESENTING  SHAMAN  OF  ARCHAIC  PERIOD  (see  p.  199). 

He  is  clad  with  sleeveless,  tight-fitting  scale  armor,  the  scales  being  cut  out  of 
leather.  They  are  outlined  in  black  varnish  over  a  coating  of  pipe-clay.  The  lines 
are  so  fine  that  they  cannot  be  brought  out.  He  wears  a  hide  helmet  surmounted  by 
a  high  crest.  Note  the  oblique  and  almond-shaped  eyes.  He  is  represented  in  the 
act  of  combating  the  demons  and  brandishing  in  his  right  hand  a  spear,  which,  being 
of  wood,  has  rotted  away  under  ground.  The  figure  is  hollow,  and  the  clay  walls  are 
very  thick  and  hard.  Pound  in  Ho-nan  Province.  Height,  51.2  cm.  Cat.  No. 
117842. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,   VOL.  XIII,    PL.  XV. 


CLAY  FIGURE  REPRESENTING  SHAMAN. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY.    VOL.  XIII,    PL.  XVI. 


3TAJR 

fona  aaaoi'fl  YAJO  i 
^Bba  gdJ  ni  bslfebom  SIB  zzei'un  sdi  lo 
j^bd  sdi  gqolsvna  doidw  .Jsmbd  sdi  o3  b 


BACK  OF  CLAY  FIGURE  ON  PRECE  r 


PLATE  XVI. 

BACK  OF  CLAY  FIGURE  SHOWN  ON  PLATE  xv. 

The  scales  of  the  cuirass  are  modelled  in  the  surface  of  the  clay.     A  coif  of  hide 
scales  is  attached  to  the  helmet,  which  envelops  the  head  on  all  sides. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,   VOL.  XIII,    PL.  XVI. 


BACK  OF  CLAY  FIGURE  ON  PRECEDING  PLATE. 


M  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY 


XVII. 


IIVX  3TAJ9 


-Q  993) 
ealsoa  srfr  .lonna  sleos 
)a  £ 


id  si  aeon  ori^  lo  qiJ 
.bifiri  bnB  il 


PLATE  XVII. 

CLAY  FIGURE  REPRESENTING  SHAMAN  (see  p.  199). 

Archaic  period.  He  is  clad  with  a  leather  scale  armor,  the  scales  being  painted 
in  black  outlines.  He  is  in  the  act  of  throwing  a  spear  during  a  struggle  with  demons. 
His  hair  is  bound  up  in  a  snail-like  chignon.  His  eyeballs  protrude,  and  the  cheek- 
bones are  prominently  accentuated.  The  tip  of  the  nose  is  broken  off.  The  figure 
is  hollow,  and  the  clay  walls  are  very  thick  and  hard.  Found  in  Ho-nan  Province. 
Height,  37.9  cm.  Cat.  No.  117841. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,   VOL.  XIII.    PL.  XVII. 


CLAY  FIGURE  REPRESENTING  SHAMAN. 


1USEUM  OF  ' 


ANTHHi 


IIIVX   3T 
.((JOS.  . 

9ffT       .90£i 


CLAV  FteunE  Of  MAGICIAN. 


PLATE  XVin. 

CLAY  FIGURE  OF  A  MAGICIAN  (see  p.  200). 

Front  view  and  profile.  He  wears  a  shirt  of  mail  beneath  his  coat,  a  cape  of 
tiger-skin  around  his  shoulders,  and  a  necklace.  The  hood-like  helmet  is  worked 
into  scales.  T'ang  period  (618-906).  Height,  36  cm.  Cat.  No.  118014. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,   VOL.  XIII,    PL.  XVIII. 


CLAY  FIGURE  OF  MAGICIAN. 


JHAt  HISTORY.  ANTHROF 


1o 


HAN  POTTERY  MODEL  OF  WATCH-TOWER 


PLATE  XIX. 

MILITARY  WATCH-TOWER  (see  p.  208). 

Model  of  green-glazed  Han  pottery,  in  the  collection  of  Mr.  Charles  L.  Freer  of 
Detroit.     It  is  here  inserted  to  illustrate  the  military  life  of  the  Han  period. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,   VOL.  XIII,    PL.  XIX. 


HAN  POTTERY  MODEL  OF  WATCH-TOWER. 


ANTH- 


bn£ 


aaoaa-owT 
Id  mow-rior/M     .  I  .gi 

oua)  nit 
.6VI  ,ie3     .mo 
Id  badgiloqnU     .s  .31*5 


s  .q  SOB)  aoma^ 
k>  veils  UK  Jo  sn£3m  \B 
.slbnfiri  wollori  ,fn»i;s  bio 


.oVI  .ieO     .mo  £$  ,ri 
Io  dorri  bnfi  bi^uO      .Jaeo 
.o>I  .i£D     .mo  17  , 


ia  9319V9T  sri i  no  angiaab  amsa  sitt  worfa 


1 
BRONZE  SWOROS  of  THE  HAN  Ptatoo 


PLATE  XX. 

TWO-EDGED  BRONZE  SWORDS  OF  THE  HAN  PERIOD  (see  p.  215). 

Fig.  I.  Much-worn  blade,  highly  polished  by  means  of  an  alloy  of  mercury  and 
tin  (such  as  is  employed  for  metal  mirrors) ,  rhomboid  guard,  hollow  handle.  Length 
45.6  cm.  Cat.  No.  116754. 

Fig.  2.     Unpolished  blade,  solid  handle.     Length,  45  cm.     Cat.  No.  116757. 

Fig.  3.     Blade,  guard,  and  handle,  made  in  one  cast.     Guard  and  knob  of  hilt 
show  the  same  designs  on  the  reverse  side.     Length,  71  cm.     Cat.  No.  116756. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,   VOL.  XIII,    PL.  XX. 


1  2  3 

BRONZE  SWORDS  OF  THE  HAN  PERIOD. 


FIELD   MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL 


ANTHROPOU 


III.    PL.  XXI. 


.(dis  .q  393) 
.mo    QQ    brie    mo  S.ssi    , 


3TAJ9 
|3HT   ^O 


|lo  aJnBnnl     .s-i    .aat 

.ao  VI 


.abiBug-biowa  9   toid  biodnprh  xttiw 


IT  ba£  no 


(AN  PtRiOD. 


PLATE  XXI. 

CAST-IRON  WEAPONS  OF  THE  HAN  PERIOD  (see  p.  216). 

Figs.    1-2.     Remnants  of  cast-iron  spears.     Length,    122.8  cm    and    99    cm. 
Cat.  Nos.  120995,  120996. 

Figs-   3~4-     Cast-iron   swords  with  rhomboid  bronze  sword-guards.     Length, 
117.6  cm  and  114.3  cm-     Cat.  Nos.  120993,  120994. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,    VOL.  XIII,    PL.  XXI. 


1234 

CAST-IRON  WEAPONS  OF  THE  HAN  PERIOD. 


X 
X 

LU 

p 
a 

IDEALIZED  PORTRAIT  OF  A  SOVEREIGN  OF  THE  HUNS. 

°      M 
0)      TO 

l| 
"S  o 

.0    C 

*I 

MJ3 

•S     § 
H  •§ 
0)     £ 

J3    « 

*>  J3 

••«   ** 
O  i-i 

IH 

S- 
It 

A&> 

%  5 

*t 

</j 

•3     TO 

O           Q 

TO      LI 
<*-(    «£ 

It 

*.« 

M  ts 

« 

T3       - 

«j  » 

13     4> 

|.s 
81 

il 

•c  '3 

|l 

si 

C      l-i 

S  ^ 

S3 

ll 
•^  § 

£•  g; 
•S  J 

ll 

^^5 
.   o 

^1 

8  * 
•8.S 

ai 

:i 

•rt  a 
+> 

KH      tXO 

TO 

*2  H 

"5  S 
o  a 

D     O 

K   w 
41   n 

11 
•** 

C    oJ 

8   c 
J5   G 

<T-|     *U 

^ 

tn 

Td 
c 

1 

•> 
•s 

4-> 

.2 

a 

I 
c 

S 
w 

3 

& 

s 

-u 

1 

03 

| 

•£ 

8 

•s 

8 

OJ 

'a 
& 

•^3 

g 

5 

_G 

C 

c3 
• 

-u 

t—  t 

:d  to  give  an  idea  of  the  Chinese  conception  of  a  sovereign  of  the  Huns  (see  p.  224).  t 
nted  on  the  hunt.  His  keen  eyes  have  spied  a  bird  in  the  branches  of  a  tree,  and  he 

ix  the  arrow  to  the  bow-string.  The  string  passes  through  the  sleeve  of  his  left  arm,  s 
aes  not  have  to  hold  the  bow  while  trotting  or  galloping.  He  wears  a  turban,  large  ea 

high  boots.  His  long  under-garment  displays  a  checkered  design,  and  may  be  compose 
llternately  black  and  white  squares,  such  as  we  still  find  among  the  tribes  of  eastern  ar 

beria.  His  cloak  is  sleeveless,  buttoned  in  front,  and  with  girdle.  The  horse  is  furnish* 
>uble  saddle-cloth,  —  an  ornamented  rug,  and  a  leather  (or  felt)  cover.  The  saddle 

S 
1 

1 

I 

• 

43 
41 
O 

c 
.22 

£ 

• 

w 

* 

d, 

a 

• 

I 

41 

$ 

'•J3 

a 
•3 
a 

1 

*8 

8  9 

t->  *j 

GO  C 

TO      O 

43  a 

C/] 
VH 

I  a 
•^   cu 

irger  reproduction  of  the  portrait.  The  entire  composition  may  be  viewed  in  L.  Binyo 
in  the  Far  East,  2d  ed.,  Plate  VIII  (London,  1913). 
;  collection  of  Sir  William  van  Home,  Montreal,  Canada.  Secured  through  Mr.  Stephs 
i,  to  whom  I  am  indebted  for  a  photograph  of  the  painting. 

ii  I 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OFNATU 


ANTMftQPCX. 


iliXX 


..<_  .q 

il/.  vd  aifirT     . 
,-noD  .8 


.;< 

;•,  .o 


PERSIAN  CHAIN  MAIL.  FRONT  View 


PLATE  XXlll. 
PERSIAN  CHAIN  MAIL  (see  p.  244). 

Made  of  twisted  iron  wire,  with  helmet.     Obtained  at  Tiflis  by  Mr.  Charles 
R.  Crane,  Chicago,  and  now  in  the  possession  of  Dr.  Charles  B.  Cory,  Chicago. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,   VOL.  XIII,    PL.  XXIII. 


PERSIAN  CHAIN  MAIL.  FRONT  VIEW 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,   VOL.  XIII,    PL.  XXIV. 


PERSIAN  CHAIN  MAIL,  BACK  VIEW. 


;AL  HISTORY 


i 

.VXX  3TAJS 

I  no  nworia  iisM  nisdO  neiaig*!  at  §nignobd 
.(£££  -q  338)  astelq  gnibsogiq  ow*  sd) 
no  stngmamp  srfT     .9lbnBri  noii  bn£  9Jbfiid  ba^a  riJiw  biowa  bggbg-owT     .  i  .giq 

I   .isvlia  rfiiw  .olbrtBrf  oriJ  ;  :bio§  rlctiw  bgJatnoni  9iB  gbsld  9dJ 

.91^*3  <M    I  ni  890902  luol  io  aaob&tngasTqgi  dJiw  rbieug-rmB  noil     .s  .gi*? 
noJJoo  bubbfiw  £  mot'l  b-jbnoqatra  ,Ii£m  io  lioc  s  \o  gm-teisnoo  .Miodr/BH     .£  .gil 

rfiiw  bgnil  ,B»*a  noJJoo  !>'j-t  -yd  bennol  3}  slDBd  ariT     Jifirn  to  JoI^nti/BO     .^  .gi1? 
aifido  Io  i9B    ?i»ania  B  Io  adaianoo  mleq  gdJ  gnitostoiq  Item  9riT 

.mo  8 1  (dJansJ     .9irw  noii  moil 


2-4 

OUTFIT  BELONGING  TO  PERSIAN  CHAIN  MAIL 


PLATE  XXV. 

Outfit  belonging  to  Persian  Chain  Mail  shown  on 
the  two  preceding  plates  (see  p.  244). 

Fig.  I.  Two-edged  sword  with  steel  blade  and  iron  handle.  The  ornaments  on 
the  blade  are  incrusted  with  gold;  those  on  the  handle,  with  silver. 

Fig.  2.     Iron  arm-guard,  with  representations  of  four  scenes  in  Persian  style. 

Fig.  3.  Hauberk,  consisting  of  a  coif  of  mail,  suspended  from  a  wadded  cotton 
quilt.  Width,  26  cm. 

Fig.  4.  Gauntlet  of  mail.  The  back  is  formed  by.  red  cotton  stuff,  lined  with 
chamois  leather.  The  mail  protecting  the  palm  consists  of  a  single  layer  of  chain 
twisted  from  iron  wire.  Length,  18  cm. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,    VOL.  XIII,    PL.  XXV. 


1  2-4 

OUTFIT  BELONGING  TO  PERSIAN  CHAIN  MAIL 


S"     1 

3    ? 

w  06  j£ 

25* 

1=1 

313 
SgS 


B-a 


"tt  T3 

B  •)  Hi 

>  s  SJ 

•C  H  fe 


"8  S 

^^ 

-43  ^3 

.2   o 

t/7  -*j 

G 


O,     . 
C     O 

5  -2  o  Z 

<->  '3   °  . 

O  *  r3  a 

rt  ^    ^  r  ^ 

a  g  s° 

d 
'9 


rt.  c 

03 

C 


-so-^o 

*»«•£« 
•a   o  -s   o 

w  |  w  .c 
««2  M   S 

PJ     v^    n  ( 

&i  3    M-M 

•  .—i       ?n     •  •->       V 


£ 


FIELD  MUSEUM   OF  NA 


POLOGY,    VOL.  XIII.,  PL.  XXVII. 


IIVXX  3TAJR 

J^^ 
.q  998)    2CIJ3IH8   VJAT3UIT 

•mol  ditvr  batasoiBmo  has  .abirf-aoisoommiojiro  itso  bteiite  xavnoO 
oini  bohoqmi  bns  aibal  ni  beiirtOBkrnBm  sisw  bnbl  sidt  io  abbiriS 


8J  airiT     .alioo  icluoib  lo 


.1  - 


.oVI  .isO     .an«tsdiT 


\o  bbid8 

io  bbirfa 


.s 


TIBETAN  S^ 


PLATE  XXVI I. 

TIBETAN  SHIELDS  (see  p.  257). 

Fig.  I.  Convex  shield  cut  out  of  rhinoceros-hide,  and  ornamented  with  four 
brass  bosses.  Shields  of  this  kind  were  manufactured  in  India  and  imported  into 
Tibet.  Cat.  No.  122178. 

Fig.  2.  Shield  of  rattan,  plaited  in  the  basketry  style  of  circular  coils.  This  is 
the  national  shield  of  the  Tibetans.  Cat.  No.  122179. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,    VOL.  XIII,    PL.  XXVII. 


TIBETAN  SHIELDS. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROKH  II,    PL.  XXVIII. 


.IIIVXX 

.q  993)  xawjaH  viAxaaiT 

gninnol  ,9iiw  lavlia  bns  blog  iltrw  botarnoni  .aJaarie  ba^a  lo  bsaoqmoO 
-aaon  A     .aqBn  arlJ  io  noboaioiq  artt  10^  *i  oi  barioB^Jfi  si  Item  to  iioo  A     .a 
ni  jaaon  aril  to  noitostoiq  9ff^  tol  89'naa  ,nwob  bfte  qv  %aibilz  ,inoil  ni  (Isasn) 
bns  sibnl  ni  baiutocfejfHjrn  siaw  aqyi  airl^  to  eJsmisH     .rrv/ob  si 

Ho     .*9dtT  o^ni 


J-PERSIAN  STYLE. 


PLATE  XXVIM. 

TIBETAN  HELMET  (see  p.  257). 

Composed  of  steel  sheets,  incrusted  with  gold  and  silver  wire,  forming  floral 
designs.  A  coif  of  mail  is  attached  to  it  for  the  protection  of  the  nape.  A  nose- 
guard  (nasal)  in  front,  sliding  up  and  down,  serves  for  the  protection  of  the  nose;  in 
the  illustration  it  is  down.  Helmets  of  this  type  were  manufactured  in  India  and 
imported  into  Tibet.  Cat.  No.  122180. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,   VOL.  XIII,    PL.  XXVIII. 


TIBETAN  HELMET  OF  INDO-PERSIAN  STYLE. 


* 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


jftat&rt.  VOL.  xiii,  PL.  xxx. 


noil 


-   ~v-t.-      i  •>•    — r 

jtM  .JsO     .tno^.ot  ,Jrf§i9H 


' 


rfJiw 


CLAY  FIGURE  OF  SOLDIER,  FRONT  AND  BACK  VIEWS. 


PLATE  XXX. 

CLAY  FIGURE  OF  SOLDIER  (see  p.  277). 

Both  front  and  back  views  are  shown.     He  is  clad  with  armor  in  combination 
with  costume.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  20.5  cm.     Cat.  No.  117916. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,   VOL.  XIII,    PL.  XXX. 


CLAY  FIGURE  OF  SOLDIER,  FRONT  AND  BACK  VIEWS. 


.    ,^J     *• 

S  s  .3 

p    rt    O, 


a    4) 

C      -K/l 


X  « 


vT    _i 

2  5 


U 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROK 


CLAY  FIGURES  OF 


PLATE  XXXli. 

ARMORED  KNIGHTS  (see  p.  278). 

Clay  figures  from  Ho-nan  Province,  of  T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  35  cm.     Cat.  Nos.  118063,  118068. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,   VOL.  XIII,    PL.  XXXII. 


CLAY  FIGURES  OF  ARMORED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  GRAVE. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NA  ! 


ANTHROPOLOUY,  VOL 


W- 


IIIXXX  3TAJ9. 


vq<*' 

;>  >j     /  J.<. 
rfq    Tifihfsoa  ov/r     .o-jfrr/oil    is-r 


bnn  ,li 


bohoq    sn£'T     ;mo   px.| 


PLATE  xxxni. 

MARBLE  MOCK-GATE  (see  p.  279). 

This  formed  the  entrance  to  a  tomb,  and  was  dug  up  in  the  environment  of  the 
city  of  Hien-yang,  Shen-si  Province.  Two  soaring  phenixes  are  carved  in  flat 
relief  on  the  lintel.  The  gate  is  marked  by  lines  and  kept  closed  by  means  of  a  bolt, 
brought  out  in  high  relief.  In  each  of  the  two  wings  is  finely  traced  the  figure  of  a 
guardian  completely  armored  with  plate  mail,  and  handling  a  sword.  Height,  52.5 
cm;  width,  34.5  cm;  T'ang  period  (618-906).  Thickness,  8.2  can.  Cat.  No. 
121623. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  XXXIII. 


MARBLE  MOCK-GATE  OF  A  TOMB. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


XXXIV. 


HJiw  baisvoo  ei 

bate  grii  , 


s&d  omulq  sriT 

e  no  baouboiqai  ad 


3     .gniniliotni  HB  BB  boiiaani 
iw  ,inoil  adi  no  bavBigna 
srf^  no  bsinsasiqat  nsad  ion 
•J3  IB  bonratdO     .£ 


HORSEMAN'S  SUIT  OF  ARMC* 


PLATE  XXXIV. 

CHINESE  PLATE  ARMOR  (see  p.  284). 

Horseman's  uniform,  of  K'ien-lung  period  (1736-95).  The  skirt  is  covered  with 
four  parallel  rows  of  light  and  elastic  steel  laminae.  In  the  coat,  the  steel  plates  are 
inserted  as  an  interlining.  Steel  helmet,  surmounted  by  velvet  plume,  dragons  being 
engraved  on  the  front,  with  silk  covers  for  neck,  ears,  and  occiput.  The  plume  has 
not  been  represented  on  the  Plate,  in  order  that  the  suit  might  be  reproduced  on  a 
larger  scale.  Obtained  at  Si-ngan.  Cat.  No.  118344. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  XXXIV. 


HORSEMAN'S  SUIT  OF  ARMOR. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


-91    91 

-blog  brie 

faanil  temforf  I39i3     .abu 
t  bamsft  orfj  lo  ii 


loiq  arii  10!  ylno  banir.i 
xftiw  baaerio  bne  ,bat£lq 
bssario  bas  ,iliup 


ARTILLERY-MAN'S  SUIT  OF  ARMOR. 


PLATE  XXXV. 

CHINESE  PLATE  ARMOR  (see  p.  285). 

Artillery-man's  uniform,  of  K'ien-lung  period  (1736-95).  The  plates  are  re- 
tained only  for  the  protection  of  the  shoulders.  Each  lamina  is  of  steel  and  gold- 
plated,  and  chased  with  a  four-clawed  dragon  soaring  in  clouds.  Steel  helmet  lined 
with  quilt,  and  chased  with  gilt  figures  of  dragons  in  pursuit  of  the  flamed  jewel. 
Obtained  at  Si-ngan.  Cat.  No.  118346. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,   PL.  XXXV. 


ARTILLERY-MAN'S  SUiT  OF  ARMOR. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


dJrw  bsiavoo  zi  io 
JB  bdnifiJdO     . 


bfioid 
.nBgn-i8 


AUCHER'S  SUIT  OF  ARMOR,  FRONT  VIEW. 


PLATE  XXXVI. 

CHINESE  PLATE  ARMOR  (see  p.  286). 

Archer's  uniform,  of  K'ien-lung  period  (1736-95).  The  interior  is  covered  with 
broad  steel  plates,  and  the  shoulders  are  protected  by  brass  plates.  Obtained  at 
Si-ngan.  Cat.  No.  118345. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  XXXVI. 


ARCHER'S  SUIT  OF  ARMOR,  FRONT  VIEW. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  XXXVII. 


ARCHER'S  SUIT  OF  ARMOR.  BACK  VIEW. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


uJ 

>.i  ymuJEo.o  a 
no  ion 

^-rrr/-,^ 


UNIFORM  OF  PALACE  GUARD-OFFICER,  FRONT  AND  BACK  VIEWS. 


PLATE  xxxvni. 

CEREMONIAL  UNIFORM  (see  p.  286). 

Belonging  to  guard-officer  of  the  first  rank  detailed  on  duty  in  the  Imperial 
Palace.  The  costume  is  magnificently  embroidered  with  heavy  gold  thread,  and 
studded  with  gilt  bosses.  The  shoulder-plates  are  arranged  in  the  same  manner 
as  in  the  suit  of  armor  on  Plate  XXXV.  Cat.  No.  32853. 

Helmet,  bow-case,  and  quiver  belonging  to  this  uniform  are  represented  on  the 
following  two  Plates. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  XXXVIII. 


1  2 

UNIFORM  OF  PALACE  GUARD-OFFICER,  FRONT  AND  BACK  VIEWS. 


FIELD   MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  XXXIX 


HELMET  OF  PALACE  OFFICER. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF 


PLATE'XLI. 

KOREAN  PLATE  ARMOR  (see  p.  288). 

Front  and  back  of  the  coat  are  strengthened  in  the  interior  by  seven  parallel 
rows  of  rectangular  steel  plates,  coated  on  both  sides  with  a  black  varnish. 
Length,  81  cm.     Cat.  No.  33281. 
The  following  Plate  illustrates  the  interior  of  this  suit,  with  the  iron  casque. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  XLI. 


KOREAN  STEEL  PLATE  ARMOR,  EXTERIOR. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


-Biooab 

HB  SB  batosani  SIB  sstelq  isqqoo  ni 
.temferf  adi  at 


on  as 
inimal  10  slfivrvme  evil 

ni 
,m  i  iuodfi  . 


KOREAN  COURT  COSTUME  OF  HIGH  0? 


PLATE  XLlll. 

KOREAN  PSEUDO-PLATE  ARMOR  (see  p.  289). 

It  has  no  plates,  but  the  rows  of  brass  bosses  on  the  surface  of  the  coat  are  decora- 
tive survivals  or  reminiscences  of  plate  armor.     Thin  copper  plates  are  inserted  as  an 
interlining  in  the  ear-muffs  and  nape-guard  attached  to  the  helmet. 
Length,  about  I  m.     Cat.  No.  33263. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  XLIII. 


KOREAN  COURT  COSTUME  OF  HIGH  OFFICIAL. 


FIELD  Ml 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII.  PL.  XUV 


v ORPHIC  FORM  OF  THE  Goo  OF  DEATH. 


PLATE  XLIV. 

YAMA,  THE  GOD  OF  DEATH  (see  p.  294). 

He  stands  on  the  body  of  a  sow,  and  is  represented  with  the  head  of  a  horned  bull, 
and  with  eagle-claws  on  his  hands  and  feet.     His  head  is  surrounded  by  flames. 

Clay  figure  from  Shen-si,  of  mediaeval  times,  probably  T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Traces  of  red  pigment;  eyeballs  painted  black. 
Height,  60  cm.     Cat.  No.  117987. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  XLIV. 


ZOOMORPHIC  FORM  OF  THE  GOD  OF  DEATH. 


j.tno^T  ; 
bntroic  griibniv/ 


ZOOMORPHIC  FORM  OF  THE  GOD  OF  D1 


PLATE  XLV. 

YAMA,  THE  GOD  OF  DEATH  (see  p.  295). 

He  stands  on  the  body  of  a  bull,  and  is  represented  with  the  head  of  a  horned  bull, 
surrounded  by  flames.     A  snake  is  winding  around  his  left  arm. 

Clay  figure  from  Shen-si,  of  mediaeval  times,  probably  T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  34  cm.     Cat.  No.  117985. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  XLV. 


ZOOMORPHIC  FORM  OF  THE  GOD  OF  DEATH. 


FIELD  MUSFUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


.IVJX  3TAJ9 

ilJT    ,A 


rtT     .^£3  oiil-Ifimin    bn£ 
.1  £  ri^w  b* 

^  bri£  ,Rll£d3Y')  ,morf  ;l- 

bohaq 


ZOOMORPHIC  FORM  OF  THE  Goo  OF  DEATH 


PLATE  XLVI. 

YAMA,  THE  GOD  OF  DEATH  (see  p.  295). 

In  the  same  pose  as  the  two  preceding  figures,  but  without  a  bull.     Demoniacal 
face  with  human  traits  and  animal-like  ears.     The  head  is  surmounted  by  a  long, 
twisted  horn.     He  is  clad  with  a  leopard-skin,  indicated  by  rows  of  black  and  red 
circular  spots.     Face  painted  red;  horn,  eyeballs,  and  beard,  black. 
Clay  figure  from  Shen-si.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  47  cm.     Cat.  No.  117988. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  XLVI. 


ZOOMORPHIC  FORM  OF  THE  GOD  OF  DEATH. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL    HISTORY. 


1HOPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIM, 


>:  frljjiml  i 


1  2 

INTERMEDIARY  AND  HUMAN  FORMS  OF  THE  GOD  OF  OF*- 


PLATE  XLVII. 
CLAY  FIGURES  FROM  SHEN-SI  AND  HO-NAN  (see  p.  295). 

Fig.  I.  Intermediary  form  of  the  God  of  Death.  His  head  is  modelled  in  the 
style  of  the  bull-faced  Yama.  as  shown  on  Plates  XLIV  and  XLV,  but  he  is  equipped 
with  armor  in  the  same  manner  as  the  human  forms.  He  stands  over  the  figure  of  a 
demon,  and  seems  to  have  grasped  a  weapon  in  his  right  hand,  which  is  perforated. 

Clay  figure  from  Shen-si.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 

Height,  45  cm.     Cat.  No.  117998. 

Fig.  2.  Fragmentary  clay  figure  from  Ho-nan,  of  armored  knight  with  plumed 
head-dress, —  a  type  evolved  from  Yama  as  triumphant  warrior.  Here  inserted  for 
comparison  of  the  head-dress  with  that  in  Fig.  I . 

Height,  31.5  cm.     Cat.  No.  117994. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL    HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  XLVII. 


1  2 

INTERMEDIARY  AND  HUMAN  FORMS  OF  THE  Goo  OF  DEATH. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURA!  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  XLVIII. 


s  to  Jfiftt  gi  abol 
lormB  Aitvr  bsIO 
tfilq  gniwollol  ariJ 
i  ,BOTBY  to 


PLATE  XLVlll. 

FORM  OF  THE  GOD  OF  DEATH  (see  p.  295). 

Intermediary  between  the  zoomorphic  and  anthropomorphic  types.  The  atti- 
tude is  that  of  a  triumphant  victor,  standing  over  the  figure  of  a  crouching  demon. 
Clad  with  armor  and  an  elaborate  head-dress,  like  the  figures  of  knights  shown  on 
the  following  plates,  he  shares  the  two-horned  bull-head  with  the  purely  animal  forms 
of  Yama,  illustrated  previously. 

Clay  figure  from  Shen-si.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  68  cm.     Cat.  No.  117993. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  XLVIII. 


THE  GOD  OF  DEATH. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII.  PL.  XLIX. 


HUMAN  FORM  OF  THE  Goo  OF  D 


PLATE  XLIX. 

THE  TRIUMPHANT  GOD  OF  DEATH  (see  p.  295). 

He  is  represented  as  a  knight  with  complete  armor,  standing  on  the  figure  of  a 
demon.  The  figure  is  coated,  except  the  head,  with  glaze  in  four  colors, — green,  blue, 
brown,  and  yellowish  white. 

Clay  figure  from  Shen-si.    T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  52.6  cm.     Cat.  No.  118000. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  XLIX. 


HUMAN  FORM  OF  THE  GOD  OF  DEATH. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.   L. 


OWi  91B  919rfT      .1OJ 

bnuol  O9ad  gvsri  oi 


•lo  uui  )  MSG 

bn.fi  ,Ilud  g 


THE  GOD  OF  DEATH. 


PLATE  L. 

HUMAN  FORM  OF  THE  GOD  OF  DEATH  (see  p.  296). 

Posed  on  the  back  of  a  reclining  bull,  and  clad  with  sheet  armor.  There  are  two 
identical  specimens  of  this  figure  in  the  Museum  collection,  said  to  have  been  found 
in  the  same  grave. 

Clay  figure  from  Shen-si.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  67  cm.     Cat.  No.  118006. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  L. 


THE  GOD  OF  DEATH. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  "TOPOLOGY.  VOL.  XIII.  PL.  LI. 


J   3TAJS 

id)  ixtnsq  v 


HUMAN  FORM  OF  THE  Goo  OF  DEATH. 


PLATE  LI. 

HUMAN  FORM  OF  THE  GOD  OF  DEATH  (see  p.  296). 

Posed  on  the  back  of  a  reclining  bull,  and  clad  with  sheet  armor.     His  left  arm 
is  akimbo,  and  his  right  hand  is  raised  as  though  throwing  a  weapon. 
Clay  figure  from  Ho-nan.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  39  cm.     Cat.  No.  117989. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  LI. 


HUMAN  FORM   OF  THE   GOD  OF   DEATH. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


TOPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  Lll. 


PLATE  Lll. 
HUMAN  FORM  OF  THE  GOD  OF  DEATH  (see  p.  296). 

The  figure  of  the  bull  is  lost,  but  may  be  supplemented  in  accordance  with  the 
figure  in  the  preceding  Plate,  with  which  it  agrees  in  pose  and  general  style.  It  is , 
however,  much  more  artistic.  The  face  is  well  modelled  and  very  expressive.  Note 
the  mustache  with  turned-up  tips.  The  clay  piece,  which  appears  dark  on  the  Plate, 
is  a  recent  supplement.  The  entire  clay  figure,  with  the  exception  of  the  head,  is 
glazed  in  three  colors, —  green,  brown,  and  yellowish-white. 

From  Ho-nan.    T'ang  period  (618-906). 

Height,  68.8  cm.     Cat.  No.  118069. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  LM. 


GLAZED  FIGURE  OF  THE  GOD  OF  DEATH. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


:-H  ft 
K)     .mo  8; 


CLAY  FIGURES  OF  THE  GOD  o 


PLATE  Llll. 

THE  GOD  OF  DEATH  (see  p.  296). 

Fig.  I.  Of  the  same  type  and  style  as  the  clay  figure  on  Plate  LI,  only  without 
helmet.  His  hair  is  parted  and  bound  up  in  a  chignon. 

Fig.  2.  In  this  figure,  the  pose  of  hands  and  feet  is  reversed,  the  right  arm  being 
akimbo,  and  the  left  one  being  raised.  He  stands  on  the  body  of  a  demon. 

Clay  figures  from  Ho-nan.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 

Height,  40  and  38  cm.     Cat.  Nos.  117876,  117991. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  Llll. 


1  2 

CLAY  FI3URES  OF  THE  GOD  or  DEATH. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


TOPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII.  PL.  LIV. 


k>  .nomab  £  lo  v 


^bod  osou/d  B  lo  3iv-  L  3o  bo£)  •> 

,3WOld  ,29^9  — 

too  ariJ  jgrbiti'-l     .boO  9ftijfl  ^pPRs  oa  ;±>ald  HI  " 

i  9V39k  arfl  to  noitioq  01  gnisd  allfidav 

ngiq  bst  e  rl^rw  baiavoo  ai 
)  bohaq  gne'T     .nsn- 
:u  .o'/I  JiO     .mo  f.o 


1  2 

CLAY  FIGURES  OF  THE  GOD  OF  DEATH. 


PLATE  LIV. 
THE  GOD  OF  DEATH  (see  p.  296). 

Fig.  i.  The  God  of  Death  trampling  on  the  body  of  a  demon,  of  the  same  style 
and  pose  as  Fig.  2  on  the  preceding  Plate. 

From  Ho-nan.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 

Height,  38.3  cm.     Cat.  No.  118065. 

Fig.  2.  The  God  of  Death  trampling  on  the  figure  of  a  human  body  (probably 
child),  coated  with  a  thick  layer  df  white  pipe  clay, —  eyes,  brows,  nose,  and  mouth 
being  painted  in  black;  so  are  also  the  boots  of  the  God.  Further,  the  outlines  of  his 
eyes  are  black  (the  eyeballs  being  red).  The  middle  portion  of  the  sleeve  of  his  right 
arm  is  covered  with  a  red  pigment. 

From  Ho-nan.    T'ang  period  (618-906). 

Height,  29.3  cm.     Cat.  No.  117995. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  LIV. 


1  2 

CLAY  FIGURES  OF  THE  GOD  OF  DEATH. 


FIELD  MUSE'  AL  HISTORY. 


. 
ton  ai  9iu§fi  3^H^HH5fiSfe4iud  £~fto  amJb;t6J?  ,J 

biiog  ,9itrg^l  ^Hft^ 

|oi  ,b£9l  moil 
.(dop-8i 


LEAD  FIGURE  OF  THE  GOD  OF  DEATH. 


PLATE  l_V. 

THE  GOD  OF  DEATH  (see  p.  296). 

Represented  as  armored  knight,  standing  on  a  bull  or  a  demon  (the  figure  is  not 
sufficiently  distinct  to  allow  of  positive  identification).     Miniature  figure,  solid  cast 
from  lead,  in  high  relief;  the  back  is  flat. 
From  Shen-si.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  ii  cm;  width,  4.3  cm;  thickness,  2.2  cm.     Cat.  No.  117091. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  LV. 


LEAD  FIGURE  OF  THE  GOD  OF  DEATH. 


AL  HISTORY. 


u 

.;  Jo  t 


arfo  no  )uo  frfgjjoid  g 

SOB!  zid  lo 

bns  J 

jft 
boh 


PLATE  LVl. 

GUARDIAN  OF  THE  GRAVE  (see  p.  297). 

Knight  or  warrior  clad  with  sheet  armor,  animal-heads  being  brought  out  on  the 
sleeves.  In  the  point  of  armor,  in  the  weird  and  demoniacal  expression  of  his  face 
(he  is  represented  as  shouting),  and  in  the  style  of  his  chignon  (compare  Plates  L  and 
LIII,  Fig.  i),  he  reveals  his  affinity  with  Yama,  the  God  of  Death. 

Clay  figure  from  Ho-nan,  of  unusual  dimensions.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  79.7  cm.     Cat.  No.  118154. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  LVI. 


CLAY  FIGURE  OF  ARMORED  KNIGHT. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


nvj 

.loans  Jsads  lo  ^bnJa  orf) 

ods  oriJ  "^IW  snimun  aofl&i 


aixfT 
:oo 

IB  bns  .albbim 
six!  ni  aoqsdw 
ibom-IbW 

boh 
id  . 


ota 

adi  ni  bsni 
£  zblod  sH 


CLAY  FIGURE  OF  ARMORED  QUAP 


PLATE  LVII. 

GUARDIAN  OF  THE  GRAVE  (see  p.  297). 

This  figure  affords  a  good  example  for  the  study  of  sheet  armor.  Plastron  and 
dossiere  are  conspicuously  represented,  each  consisting  of  two  halves  joined  in  the 
middle,  and  are  connected  by  leather  straps  running  over  the  shoulders.  He  holds  a 
weapon  in  his  right  hand. 

Well-modelled  clay  figure  from  Ho-nan,  with  traces  of  red  pigment.  T'ang  pe- 
riod (618-906). 

Height,  61.9  cm.     Cat.  No.  118008. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  LVII. 


CLAY  FIGURE  OF  ARMORED  GUARDIAN. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


302)    ."IVAHxJ  OTT 

ruin-op! 
.mo  d. 


CLAY  FIOURE  OF  ARMORED  GUARDIAN. 


PLATE  LVlll. 

GUARDIAN  OF  THE  GRAVE  (see  p.  297). 

Warrior  clad  with  sheet  armor,  cape,  and  hooded  helmet. 

Clay  figure  from  Ho-nan.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 

Height,  33.6  cm.     Cat.  No.  118013. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  LVIII. 


CLAY  FIGURE  OF  ARMORED  GUARDIAN. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY 


di  hns 


PAIR  OF  ARMORED  GUARDIANS. 


PLATE  LIX. 

GUARDIANS  OF  THE  GRAVE  (see  p.  297). 

Warriors  clad  with  sheet  armor  and  hoods.     They  wear  bushy  mustaches  with 
turned-up  tips. 

Clay  figures  from  Shen-si.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  45  and  46  cm.     Cat.  Nos.  118061,  118062. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  LIX. 


1  2 

PAIR  OF  ARMORED  GUARDIANS. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ntinaaaiqdfr  ,•> 
SrTeiH     .temlsd  s> 
verf  oJ  arrraae  7B9q3  nofx>o 

T    .dj^^H 
no8ii 


FRAGMENTARY  CLAY  FIGURE  OF  ARMORED  GUARDIAN. 


PLATE  LX. 

GUARDIAN  OF  THE  GRAVE  (see  p.  297). 

Upper  portion  of  clay  figure,  representing  shouting  warrior  clad  with  sheet 
armor,  shoulder-guards,  and  hood-like  helmet.     His  right  fist  has  an  aperture  (made 
by  means  of  a  drill),  in  which  a  wooden  spear  seems  to  have  been  inserted. 
From  Ho-nan.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  34  cm.     Cat.  No.  118011. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  LX. 


FRAGMENTARY  CLAY  FIGURE  OF  ARMORED  GUARDIAN. 


FIELD  MUSE     •  RAL  HISTO»v 


IXJ    3TAJ9 

.(oo 

J  'to  snjsF 
1 7  gni 

^b  gaiDsctariq  9rlJ  ai  J 


MARBLE  RELIEF  OF  GUARDIAN  OF  THE  WORLD. 


PLATE  LXl. 
GUARDIAN  OF  THE  WORLD  (see  p.  300). 

One  of  the  four  Lokapala  or  Guardians  of  the  World  of  Hindu  mythology,  who 
hold  sway  at  the  foot  of  the  World-Mountain  Sumeru.  This  is  King  Virupaksha 
residing  on  the  western  side  of  the  mountain,  holding  in  his  left  hand  a  miniature 
pagoda,  and  seizing  a  sword  with  his  right.  Here  inserted  to  illustrate  the  identity 
of  sheet  armor  in  Buddhist  stone  sculpture  with  that  in  the  preceding  clay  figures  of 
the  same  epoch. 

Relief  marble  plaque,  obtained  from  the  temple  King-ch'eng-se  at  Si-ngan, 
Shen-si.  T'ang  period  (618-906). 

Height,  38  cm;  width,  21  cm.     Cat.  No.  121555. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY.  VOL.  XIII.  PL.  LXI. 


„ 

*r     Q 

A 


MARBLE  RELIEF  OF  GUARDIAN  OF  THE  WORLD. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLC 


IIXJ    5TAJ9 

aajaaAS 


iq  .uorfo ; 


GLAZED  CLAY  FIGURE  01 


PLATE  LXII. 

CLAY  FIGURE  OF  SADDLED  HORSE  (see  p.  313). 

Coated  with  soft  lead  glazes  in  three  colors, —  a  deep  brown,  a  light  yellow,  and  a 
plant  green.  Saddle-cloth  and  saddle  are  represented,  the  latter  being  padded  with 
a  gracefully  draped  textile  material. 

Excavated  in  Lung  chou,  prefecture  of  Feng-siang,  province  of  Shen-si.  T'ang 
period  (618-906). 

Height,  27.5  cm.     Cat.  No.  118039. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII.  PL.  LXII. 


GLAZED  CLAY  FIGURE  OF  HORSE. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.   LXIII. 


jlnini  9vt33£m  srfT     .anoisnamib  ati  ni  aisoxa 
bablirom  21  li^f  sriT     .bsliabom  Ilaw  yhlBi  SIB  ,a)oorf 


bohoq  gnr, 
»M  .^sO     .coo 


CLAY  FIGURE  OF  HORSE,  FR< 


PLATE  LXlll. 

CLAY  FIGURE  OF  HORSE  (see  p.  313). 

This  unglazed  figure  excels  in  its  dimensions.  The  massive  trunk  and  chest  of 
the  horse,  its  feet  and  hoofs,  are  fairly  well  modelled.  The  tail  is  moulded  separately 
and  stuck  in. 

From  Shen-si.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  52.8  cm.     Cat.  No.  118036. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  LXIII. 


CLAY  FIGURE  OF  HORSE,  FROM  SHEN-SI. 


FIELD  v  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY. 


-VIXJ   3TAJR 

.q  39B)  aesroH  TO 

srIT     .  tj  amtr^  aeiod  si 

SIB  slbi  .  . ri Job-alb: 

)  bt)h9q  gnfi'T     .aei 


PLATE  LXIV. 

CLAY  FIGURE  OF  HORSE  (see  p.  313). 

This  horse  turns  its  head  sideways.     The  muscles  are  brought  out  in  its  head. 
Headstall,  saddle-cloth,  and  padded  saddle  are  represented. 
From  Ho-nan.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  27.7  cm.     Cat.  No.  118038. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  LXIV 


CLAY  FIGURE  OF  SADDLED  HORSE,  FROM  HO-NAN. 


>F  NATURAL  HlSTORl 


•OPOt-OGV,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  LXV. 


.VXJ   3TAJ9 

aefloH  TO 
Jrighqu  bna 


oJ  amsae  lottoq  arii  ,fiijg  ied'ffai. 


OM  HO-NAN 


PLATE  LXV. 

CLAY  FIGURE  OF  HORSE  (see  p.  313). 

Horse  with  complete  harness  and  upright  mane.     The  head  is  well  modelled; 
and,  though  the  pose  is  somewhat  stiff,  the  potter  seems  to  have  attempted  to  repre- 
sent the  animal  as  though  mourning  for  its  deceased  master. 
From  Ho-nan.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  30  cm.     Cat.  No.  118060. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  LXV. 


CLAY  FIGURE  OF  SADDLED  HORSE,  FROM  HO-NAN. 


PL.  LXV 


PLATE  LXVI. 

CLAY  FIGURE  OF  HORSE  (see  p.  313). 

Horse  with  complete  harness,  mourning  for  its  dead  master.     The  trappings 
with  their  metal  ornaments,  the  tinkling  bells  on  the  breastband,  as  well  as  the  de- 
signs of  lotuses  on  the  crupper,  are  neatly  moulded  in  relief. 
From  Ho- nan.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  32  cm.     Cat.  No.  118037. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  Of  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY.  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  LXVI. 


CLAY  FIGURE  OF  SADDLED  HORSE.  FROM  HO-NAN. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL,  XIII,  PL     LXVII. 


fans 


B  ,00-ng-Jn, 
•qz  aril  m  bauoi 
bohsq  gne'T 


GLAZED  CLAY  FIGURE  OF  HORSE.  FROM  ( 


PLATE  LXVll. 

CLAY  FIGURE  OF  HORSE  (see  p.  313). 

Fragmentary  figure  of  horse,  of  unusual  dimensions,  and  coated  with  lead  glazes 
of  light-yellow,  plant-green,  and  brown  tints. 

From  Ho-nan;  found  in  the  spring  of  1910  during  the  cuttings  for  a  railroad  north 
of  the  city  of  Ho-nan  fu.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  80  cm.     Cat.  No.  118040. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL,  XIII,  PL.  LXVII. 


GLAZED  CLAY  FIGURE  OF  HORSE,  FROM  HO-NAN. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  LXVIII. 


IIIVXJ    ? 


io  d*t££ttni  9fw  10  ^*ic 
A  adi  lo  bcsdsiol  ad^  no  lied  ariT     .nMoo 

fxjnaq  goe'T     .ia-aariS  cnoii 
oVl  .ieO     .mo 


SMEN- 


PLATE  LXVlll. 
CAVALIER  (see  p.  314). 

Horseman,  escort  of  the  inmate  of  the  grave.  Such  figures  were  placed  in  front 
of,  or  behind,  the  coffin.  The  hair  on  the  forehead  of  the  horse  is  parted  and  combed 
toward  the  sides. 

Clay  figure  from  Shen-si.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  33  cm.     Cat.  No.  118049. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  LXVIII. 


CLAY  FIGURE  OF  CAVALIER,  FROM  SHEN-SI. 


u 
o 

1 

i 

M 

IP 

<u 

J2 

t 
f 

00 

c 

'•3 
8 

a 

OJ 

c 

"S 

en 
rt 

a 

X 
X 

O*    rO 

8   » 

en      0) 

5_ 
1 

a> 

s 

PLATE 

en     4 

«j      C 
W    " 

•J       <u 
<     -tJ 

1 

0 

a 
.^ 

10 

O 
00 

a 

« 

"o 
c 

f 

oo 

00 
-t- 

O 

>     rt 

"M 

M 

1 

T3 

°^ 

O  2 

§ 

^0 

B 

e 

•c 

« 

1 

o 
u 
w: 

3 

•^ 

1 

B 

a 

0 

^ 

woman 

llowish- 

a 
6 
ffi 

E 

"rt 
O 

"o 
C 

3 

H 

"S 

CJ 

• 

0 

0 

n 

r~*—  * 

" 

tn 

>, 

i; 

^ 

•  »— 

f^ 

O 

o 

cu 

s 

00 
0) 

at 
u 

0 

O 

c 

^ 

4J 

'J^ 

^j* 

•• 

^ 

T 

<N 

S 

.'S0 

M 

a 

r~\ 

'o 
h-1 

_M 

V7" 

a 

r-i-. 

h-1 

—       — *•» 

- 


o 


8  ~ 


u<£ 


.Si 

•**      r-1 


5  e  . 

IA       Ctf     ltd 

-o   c   o 

S   8  g 

ill    . 

3|j 

*!! 

M^    g 
S3    43     O 

•43    g  •*= 

«*H         S        nj 

^'t^ 

«  ^"°«s 

^     M--    +j 

•     G    ,,,    9> 

X 

X 

-I 

a  -5  «  jj 
$  ^  S  Ji    • 

i       ra    ,C    »C   -^"^ 

LJ 

v._i-     w          -u   \o 

5 

W      °    ^     G    jT 

CL 

HH         -4~*                      i-1      OO        & 

<     ^^1^? 

bl     "U  r3    c    ^^  °° 

5  «  1  1  1  2 

.8   X  S-  li   a 

FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  \. 


-IXXJ 
.Q  392)    VIAMOW 

rrf  rfJrw  ieco 


(dOQ-8id)  bohaq  anfi'T     .nen-oH  moi 
.8?o8u  .oM  .^fiO     .mo 


CLAY  FIGURE  OF  EQUESTRIAN  WOMAN. 


PLATE  LXXl. 

HORSEWOMAN  (see  p.  315). 

Wearing  male  attire,  a  girdled  coat  with  triangular  lapels,  trousers,  and  boots. 
The  saddle-cloth  is  formed  by  a  panther-skin. 

Clay  figure  from  Ho-nan.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  30.2  cm.     Cat.  No.  118058. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  LXXI. 


CLAY  FIGURE  OF  EQUESTRIAN  WOMAN. 


M  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY, 


nwob 
.stoqz 


HXXJ    3TAJ1 

i£  -q  993) 
rfoirlw  mo'd  qco  tsfi 
£  bei 


l?-8id)  boheq  gae'T. 
.•vSO^fi 


10 


srtt  lo 

sa-oH  moil 
.^sO     ,mo 


CLAY  FIGURE  OF  EQUESTRIAN  WOMAN. 


PLATE  LXXll. 

HORSEWOMAN  (see  p.  315). 

In  brownish-red  dress,  with  flat  cap  from  which  a  long  ribbon  is  floating  down 
her  back.     The  neck  of  the  horse  is  painted  red  and  overstrewn  with  white  spots. 
The  muscles  of  the  head,  the  nostrils,  jaws,  teeth,  and  tongue  are  carefully  modelled. 
Clay  figure  from  Ho-nan.     T'ang  period  (618-906). 
Height,  36  cm.     Cat.  No.  118057. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY.  ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XIII,  PL.  LXXII. 


CLAY  FIGURE  OF  EQUESTRIAN  WOMAN. 


YORK  cn 


GETTY  CENTER  LIBRARY 


3  3125  00965  8325 


